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 Give Searchers 'Instant Previews' of Result Pages

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-time-to-waste dept.

GUI 252

First pressing 'Enter' was to much work... now actually clicking on the links and visiting the sites is to much, too... Google is testing instant previews, where you can see a miniature rendered view of the landing page without requiring you to click through and back-arrow.

cancel ×

252 comments

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

"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (3, Interesting)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177320)

YAY! Preview-porn is best-porn!

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (2, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177440)

YAY! Preview-porn is best-porn!

And just think of all those links to goatse-guy (and similar) that we're going to suffer through.
Never mind, we'll probably all go to jail if even one kiddie-porn link shows up in search results for regular porn...

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177632)

I think that depends on how it's implemented. If it provides a snapshot after hovering over the link, then ya, that could be a problem. If there's a separate icon, like the spyglass that has to be explicitly clicked to show preview, then it can be a nice feature by showing a thumbnail of the offending site rather than displaying it on a maximized browser screen.

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177444)

Don't worry, Google only serves the squeaky-clean, family-friendly, corporate, censored-for-your-convenience Internet.

The results-as-you-type version of Google is already censored to hell. Some website collected censored terms and you had to scroll A LOT to see the whole list of forbidden words. Now that they even show you the sites, you'll probably only be shown results from disney.com and a few other "wholesome" sites. Coincedentally those arbitrarily deemed "not wholesome" will be blackmailed into submission by threatening them with exclusion from ad-services *cough* TV tropes *cough*

Ain't it grand?

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177574)

Um, yes, I'd hope that Google Instant was censored because who wants to type in something innocent and have it come up with a porn site? Do you really want to be searching for something like "Sexual Harassment Lawsuits" and simply have all the sites for "sex" or "sexual" come up whenever you type them?

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (5, Funny)

dirk (87083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177700)

Um, yes, I'd hope that Google Instant was censored because who wants to type in something innocent and have it come up with a porn site? Do you really want to be searching for something like "Sexual Harassment Lawsuits" and simply have all the sites for "sex" or "sexual" come up whenever you type them?

Yes, yes I do.

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178052)

What would be worse is if you start typing "child"..... and up pop all the sexting images middle and high school girlfriends are sending to boyfriends via the net.

"No Mr. Cop, I swear I wasn't looking."
"Your web cache shows otherwise. Enjoy 20 years."

Re:"But I didn't actually VISIT that page" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177680)

Yeah because Google has such massive problems with the image search. </sarcasm>

about your sig; mod me (-1 offtopic) (-1, Offtopic)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177760)

Attack a product, fine, go for it. Attack users of a product, automatic "troll" whenever I get mod points. Behave.

If someone attacks the users of crystal meth do you mod them troll ;)

Re:about your sig; mod me (-1 offtopic) (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178306)

It depends on the attack. If you call meth users "rapists" then you deserve a troll mod. If you ask why someone would use Sony products when Sony has a history of abusing their products, you'll get a "troll" mod, but you won't deserve it; it's a valid opinion.

Re:about your sig; mod me (-1 offtopic) (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178472)

To not get modded troll by mcgrew, just post in a discussion where he is participating ;-)

Users of Sony and Apple products deserve it when DRMs explode in their face. They should know better.

Drug use should be free but should require a license to buy them, just like driving a car. And that would include alcohol and tobacco.

There's only one upgrade needed for Google (5, Insightful)

taustin (171655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177340)

And that's to turn off Javascript, which returns it to the original, clean, doesn't-suck-donkey-dick home page with a box to type in the search term and a couple of buttons to click.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (4, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177454)

Personally I hate the "no enter button" thing, because it retrieves results based on typos and altogether before I am finished forming the query I want to make. It runs contrary to the flow of 15+ years of search engine usage for me.

It's also annoying as hell to revise the query only to have that dropdown appear, obscuring part of the page.

Personally, especially at work, I don't want Google pulling up any random page from search results on my behalf.

Stop trying to think for us, and be what Google originally was - simple, lightweight, doing only what I need and nothing more.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (4, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177560)

Well it's very easy to turn it off, just click the settings link at the top of the page.

The drop down also does not obscure any of the page, it pushes it down.

If you don't want to use new helpful Google features, you have the option to opt out of them, but Google does a significant amount of testing on their pages for usability so I'm sure most people will find these features helpful.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1, Flamebait)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177594)

"Obscuring" meaning shoving results down, and wasting screen space on things I don't want to see yet.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178164)

The drop down also does not obscure any of the page, it pushes it down.

I guess I need to go file a bug report, because it always overlaps the first search result for me.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (2, Interesting)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178326)

Whenever a new annoying feature pops up that people complain about, there are always a couple of comments that go "oh, but you can easily turn it off". That's great if you are only going to use one computer regularly.

For everyone else who does need to use several computers in a week, it's very annoying to almost always have to tweak the default settings to something that doesn't bug you. School computers, work computers, library computers, etc. all carry default settings that don't necessarily migrate with you between sessions when changed.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (3, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178544)

And I don't WANT to log in everywhere just to keep my personal changes persistent.

I only log in on PCs I trust and use regularly.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (2, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177706)

Hmm, I do all my googling from the search bar / URL awesomebar. Hell, even if my browser doesn't happen to support awesomebar, opendns returns a page with a google query to whatever text I typed.

I don't recall the last time I actually did a search from google.com.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178630)

If you really never need to refine your search terms on Google's results page, I envy your ability to craft perfect searches.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (2, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177770)

right. Its bad enough when the first link from google on (a bit of obscure JS/CSS/browser compatability issues) links to a BMEzine forum and you don't realize it until you notice the user icons and signatures. Was a helpful thread though, contained a lot of useful info, and some squicky stuff requiring brain bleach.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178152)

Personally I hate the "no enter button" thing, ...

Although I hated for years I now search from the address bar as it avoids this nonsense.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178368)

It runs contrary to the flow of 15+ years of search engine usage for me.

That's like wanting to get rid of the double click; people are used to it, even though it is retarded in a world of two button mice.

It's like saying "Mice run contrary to the flow of 15+ years of keyboard usage for me."

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (4, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178588)

Search engines are supposed to be a transaction. "Here's what I want." "Here are your results"

It's annoying I think to most people in a way that is hard to describe. It's like speaking to a person who always tries to finish your sentences before you're done speaking.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (2, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177484)

Yep, that does cure most of what ails it. But 1) most people don't know how to do this, and 2) it's a damned nuisance even tho I can do it with one tick of a checkbox.

And then you've got to turn it back on to get any useful behaviour from Google Maps, tho they've become so cumbersome of late that I'd welcome suggestions of where I'd find something like it used to be, with the map, sat, and terrain views, but not every damned gadget in the world making it so damned slow that it's easier to go find my paper maps.

Same with Translate.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (4, Interesting)

Colonel Sponsz (768423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178478)

Yep, that does cure most of what ails it. But 1) most people don't know how to do this, and 2) it's a damned nuisance even tho I can do it with one tick of a checkbox.

And then you've got to turn it back on to get any useful behaviour from Google Maps, tho they've become so cumbersome of late

Ah, but you don't!
If you're using Noscript, whitelist maps.google.com (by default, Noscript whitelists the entire domain - but you can whitelist subdomains manually) and gstatic.com. There's no need to whitelist all of google.com.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178538)

The quietest I can make Google maps is to display only street maps --no annoying Streetview triggering by mistake if you zoom too close. However, there's no relief map or sat imaging there. Just go to maps.google.com/mobile. I found out that google defaults you to that link if your JS is off or the browser (Konqueror or Midori) is tricky.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177780)

Somebody on slashdot converted me from a google homepage user, to a firefox search bar user about a year ago now, and I've never looked back.
The homepage really does suck-donkey-dick, and will only suck more going forward as stuff is added. But unfortunately the javascript will now need to be blocked on the results page too.

Does anyone find this instant-o-matic-crap actually slows them down, as the page jerks around to the firing of javascript setTimeouts?

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (2, Informative)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178168)

No, honestly I prefer the instant search to the old search. I often get the result I want when I am only part way through typing the query I thought I had to type. For example, I may have been planning to type something like 'soccer drills for U19 site:.edu' in (yes, I coached this year). Often times with instant, the result that I want may already be there when I get to say soccer drills. It depends on the topic, but often it does indeed save me time. I've yet to see it cost me time.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178244)

Turning off JavaScript won't save the results from being infested with results that come from a search term that approximates what you searched for. The "Did you mean...?" feature has essentially taken over the entire engine.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178340)

I've been conditioning myself this past year because it's when they have made the most visible search changes. Remember that "Google everything" thing? That's when I started sucking my gut and using bing and yahoo for my first searches.

Re:There's only one upgrade needed for Google (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178486)

http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net]
Just block google.

Sometimes competition isn't so good (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177342)

Would Google be doing all of this if not for concerns about Bing and such? Competition is normally good, but despite what they claim in my experience Google Instant really seems to slow down my searches. I'm not convinced this will be a real improvement either. Of course everyone seems to think Chrome is great too but it just seems painfully slow to me, so maybe i've just been having bad luck with Google products lately.

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177544)

You're right. Google says there is no slow down based on their response speed, but in reality, the slow down is noticeable on old machines that execute javascript slowly even with the latest chrome versions.

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177718)

You need to defrag your browser OS. :p

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178018)

I was talking about Chrome, not Chrome OS!

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (2, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178216)

In older machines, as the metal wears and clearancesgrow, it's often a good idea to use a thicker lubricant to speed things up. I recommend 5W-40 Delvac 1.

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177646)

Click "Instant Is On", click "Off". Tadaa! You're right back to the 'good old days'.

Personally, i thought Instant was jarring and annoying at first, but I decided to give it a couples days to get used to it. Turns out I think it's actually pretty nice, if nothing else it lets you change your queries on the fly, adding more keywords if necessary to narrow down your search by just continuing to type.

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (3, Informative)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178104)

I do not know about you, but this "instant off" option requires cookies and I do not browse with cookies enabled by default - that is just asking for trouble!

Furthermore, even though I wish the internet was really fast everywhere, it isn't. Features like this "instant on" feature slow down my typing: I have come to the point and typing speed that I know what my search term is and I don't wait one term at a time to see if I want to "narrow my searching field" by selecting another term. I can type at 60 words per minute+...I do not want their help

Oh and it gets really annoying when I type something, hit enter, then have it do a completely different search for me because my mouse pointer was floating near by...

I really want something like the following:
http://www.google.com/classic [google.com]

No frills, no extra bandwidth consumed, no searching for the wrong damn thing when I didn't ask for it, and no Google recommend...these new features are just as useful (to me) as the operating systems and likewise gui on Verizon Wireless cellphones - which is completely hideous. /endrant

PS: yes I will still use Google, I just wish for a simpler time

Re:Sometimes competition isn't so good (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178260)

I find it temporarily-freezes my computer while the search is updating.
Sometimes simple HTML is better.

-1 Please No! (5, Insightful)

Rysc (136391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177350)

The instant search results are a pain for me. They violate my back button expectations and they interfere with my web searching workflow: I may alter my query in preperation for the next iteration while still scanning the page for links to open in new tabs.

It also uses excessive bandwidth by searching for me--and causing the page scrollbar to jump around jarringly--when I am not done typing.

One thing I always liked about Google right from the first is that they're *lightweight* and fast. Clutter free and minimal to the greatest extent possible. I understand with things like the never-ending-image-search and instant results from queries they're trying to compete with the glitz of bing and other so-called competitors, but this seriously hurts the experience for users like me. Please, Google! You don't have to compete on glitz when you have a hands-down superior product!

Re:-1 Please No! (2, Insightful)

Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177432)

The setting to turn off instant search appears next to the search box, alongside the safe search setting. I'd guess the setting for this new thing will be just as easy to turn off.

Re:-1 Please No! (2, Interesting)

simp (25997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177586)

And they store the on/off switch in a cookie, not with your normal google account settings. So each time cookies are cleared in a webbrowser you have to set it again. Very annoying.

Re:-1 Please No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177488)

Why are you enabling javascript by default?

Not doing so would solve all your complaints. It also makes the web suck a lot less overall. Highly recommended.

Re:-1 Please No! (2, Insightful)

Rysc (136391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177638)

NoScript has google.com whitelisted because a lot of things I do make this necessary.

Re:-1 Please No! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177874)

I agree.

I have found the instant preview to be more of a pain than anything else. I didn't mind the drop down for commonly searched topics - that was good, but I don't want it to be showing results for something until I've actually finished entering something.

Re:-1 Please No! (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178250)

Please, Google! You don't have to compete on glitz when you have a hands-down superior product!

Maybe you could apply for a job as VP of Marketing for Google, since you understand better than they need to do to compete....?

Or, just turn the feature off.

Not only useless but also distracting (4, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177358)

First Google Instant and now this. What's the value in seeing a small thumbail of the page? The text is too small to read anyway and this will only add to the distraction. You can't evaluate a page based on the layout or how it looks. You're usually looking for content when you search.

Re:Not only useless but also distracting (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177522)

Improving the snippets of website text, shown in normal results, would be much more useful than this visual, well, gimmick.

Easy too - simply by allowing more text to be shown (technically easy at least, because I guess we would get more "Google is stealing from us!" a'la Murdoch)

PS. Option of bigger (say, two to three line, configurable) snippets would be useful in Slashdot D2, too.

Re:Not only useless but also distracting (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178320)

I went back to the classic index.

I got frustrated with how the new D2 dynamic index only displayed *some* of the message instead of all of them. And it was a pain to keep clicking to open those non-displayed messages. I prefer the old method of loading everything in one solid burst of data, and then I can just lean back and read.

Re:Not only useless but also distracting (4, Interesting)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177662)

What's the value in seeing a small thumbail of the page? The text is too small to read anyway and this will only add to the distraction. You can't evaluate a page based on the layout or how it looks. You're usually looking for content when you search.

Actually, there is a lot of value in this, at least for me. A lot of times I find that I'm trying to go back and re-find some page the I found in the search results a while back. In my head, I know exactly what the page looks like, but currently I have to click on each link one at a time, wait 1 to 10 seconds for each page to load, go back, and repeat. This would be much quicker.

Aside from that, I'm sorry to tell you, but one often CAN evaluate a page based on how it looks.

visual people (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177362)

I like this feature for a couple reasons. I'm a visual person, I like seeing if the site is the one I remember before I go visit, or if it's a spam-link-farm kind of page that's just wasting my time. I also like their "highlight" that shows WHERE in a page I'll find the sought phrase they snipped.

I also like the Google Flip feature at the bottom of their news page, but I don't like the two-click process to visit the site. Clicking on the preview gives a (useless) bigger preview, and then clicking on that takes you to the showcased page. Without the second preview, it would be a nice little stumbleupon-like way of finding interesting stories/news/ideas around the web.

editor dumb (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177382)

me say talk like me dumb

google give dick suck

Is that a threat? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177388)

"We know where every word on the web lives,” he said.

So if I use Bing, you might go and rough-up some of my favorite words in retaliation? Please, Google, this web is big enough for the both of us!

Enough already!! (4, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177412)

Dammit, all I want is simple search. I don't want previews, or weighted results, or guessing what I really meant, or a map and pictures and previews of everything that happens to come up in the list of results. Just give me the damned plain search and the naked results. Stop wasting my time with YOUR idea of what YOU think I wanted.

Oh wait, that should be "What your ADVERTISERS think I wanted". My mistake.

Google got popular because it was SIMPLE and FAST. It's a damned shame there's no competition left that believes in simple search, so now even Google feels free to tell us how WE want to search.

What the search world needs is a reset, back to what Google was like when it was new and still eager to collect more eyeballs, instead of the 800 pound gorilla that dictates how every web page is optimized and which ones we get to see when we go looking for something.

Re:Enough already!! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177558)

I lack mod points, so I'll put it this way instead...

Please get out of my head. You're obviously stealing my thoughts and claiming them for yourself. Bastard. :)

Google jumped the shark (1)

dmahurin (2128) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177590)

I also just want a simple search.
Not annoying searches on every key stroke, not hover searches ...

Simplicity was why google was better than yahoo, infoseek, and alta vista years ago.

I suggested google from the beginning, and now I am looking for a new search engine.

duckduckgo.com looks promising.

Anyone else have suggestions?

Re:Startpage (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177848)

How about Startpage Advanced?

https://startpage.com/eng/advanced-search.html [startpage.com]

They're making efforts to start protecting your privacy.

DuckDuckGo does indeed look interesting.

Re:Startpage (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178362)

startpage.com only works in newish browsers, and duckduckgo.com requires CSS and JS. Neither had particularly good results.

So... nix on both of those, at least for me. :(

Re:Google jumped the shark (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177878)

Look at this guys: Everybody who wants "simple searches' has at most a 5 digit UID, mostly 3 and 4 digit.

The nurses must be late with the AM meds again.

Re:Google jumped the shark (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178186)

Wrong.

Re:Google jumped the shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178158)

http://hotbot.com is still around, minimal, and can get results from yahoo, lygo, or msn

Re:Enough already!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177624)

Dude! It's your computer, not theirs. You don't HAVE to run their scripts.

I hate the same things you hate, so I just don't run their scripts. Google work fine without them and becomes exactly what you and I prefer.

I actually don't understand why *everybody* isn't doing that. It makes the internet so much safer and nicer. Yeah ok whitelist your bank or whatever, but for general browsing, it's insane to run scripts by default these days.

Re:Enough already!! (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178616)

An AC says, "I hate the same things you hate, so I just don't run their scripts. Google work fine without them and becomes exactly what you and I prefer. I actually don't understand why everybody* isn't doing that. It makes the internet so much safer and nicer. Yeah ok whitelist your bank or whatever, but for general browsing, it's insane to run scripts by default these days."

Because more and more sites are ensuring that there's reduced or absent functionality without their scripts (Google maps are a fine example of that). Of course without the scripts, most of the advertising doesn't work either. Do you sense a connection??

Re:Enough already!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178048)

Software spoils. Plain and simple.

Re:Enough already!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178064)

You are more than welcome to not use their free service, maybe you could find what you want in the library?

Re:Enough already!! (2, Insightful)

mattdm (1931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178294)

Google got popular because it was SIMPLE and FAST.

You're missing something. It was simple and fast, and gave results head and shoulders above those returned by the competition. Now, it's true that the competition had given up on getting better results and was instead working on trying to make money off of you while it tried to convince you you didn't want to leave the site anyway (so never mind those search results anyway -- please stay at our "portal"). But Google did more than just minimalism. Suddenly, the Internet was useful, because you could find what you needed, even if it was on some obscure page.

And how did Google make that work so well? Well, precisely by doing what you're worried about: organizing the results in a way which matches their algorithm's guess as to the most helpful response for your query.

After all, there's always been wget -r and grep.

Re:Enough already!! (2, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178504)

Actually, no. At the time Google's results were not particularly better, and were decidedly worse than some of the established search tools (I remember running some comparisons back when Google was the new kid on the block).

It took a couple years to peel me off the ones I'd been using, because it took that long for Google's results to catch up. And that was about the time the others went for the irritating "portal" interface, which was FAR too damned slow for those of us who were still stuck on dialup.

But Google worked in any browser and on even the slowest connection, and was never in-your-face like a portal. And perhaps most important, thanks to its simple interface Google was so fast, both to come up and for results, that if an initial search was useless you didn't feel like you'd wasted your time, you'd just try again.

And now Google has given up trying to give you better results, and is concentrating on trying to make money off of you by being everything you'll ever need ... oh, wait. Haven't we seen this movie before??

Re:Enough already!! (3, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178506)

Stop wasting my time with YOUR idea of what YOU think I wanted.

...

Google got popular because ....

Ummm....actually Google got popular by making things that were their idea of what people wanted.

Re:Enough already!! (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178656)

I guess changing some settings is too much work for you

Good and bad (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177430)

The good thing is, I can see this helping with sandboxing browsers, especially the ones in internet cafes or public labs when you are searching for something and you get bombarded with ads (usually the talking ones when the person before you turned the volume to max) or irrelevant content. However, Google is becoming less and less lightweight. If I wanted things like this I would use "iGoogle" or whatever their portal page is now.

OOOLAAAAALAAAA GGOOGLE TOO SEXY FOR MY SHORTS !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177472)

Too sexy for my shorts, too sexy yeah !!

Teh Google OWNS U suckas !!

Just stop it! (5, Insightful)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177482)

I don't want to see a single new Google technology until they put the Google image search back to the way it used to be before they shitified it. It's so damned annoying to use now that I'm actually using Bing when I want to search images.

Re:Just stop it! (2, Interesting)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177726)

I disagree. I find google images so much better now instead of having to go page after page - and I can now select exactly what sized images I want.

Re:Just stop it! (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178106)

You're going to Bing... which basically did Google Images 2.0 first?

Re:Just stop it! (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178284)

dude, i love the new google image search...

I don't want it! (1)

Parhelion (857262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177490)

I thought Flash was a CPU hog. This 'preview' functionality REALLY bogs down my web browser! I don't want it!

Re:I don't want it! (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177546)

Seriously? What are you running? IE??

Re:I don't want it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178118)

I thought Flash was a CPU hog. This 'preview' functionality REALLY bogs down my web browser! I don't want it!

What browser is unable to render images in a page of text without getting "bogged down"? Have you considered using IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera?

Re:I don't want it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178374)

I thought Flash was a CPU hog. This 'preview' functionality REALLY bogs down my web browser! I don't want it!

What browser is unable to render images in a page of text without getting "bogged down"? Have you considered using IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera?

I use Lynx you insensitive clod!

Why fix what is not broken? I'm going to hate it! (4, Insightful)

mrnick (108356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177502)

I don't like the feature, on Google, that moves an indicator when I press my arrow keys and lets me (forces me to) select the link with the enter key. I use my arrow keys for scrolling, not for navigation within the embedded HTML. I have a strong feeling I'm not going to like this either.

Remember when Google won us all over with their simplistic no frills search results? Why do people feel the need to fix what is not broken??

Nick Powers

Re:Why fix what is not broken? I'm going to hate i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34177984)

The keyboard navigation is a feature of Google Instant. You can disable it by turning off Google Instant (either from search settings or from clicking the "Instant is on" link to the right of the search entry field).

Ads (2, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177530)

So, do the ads load up in that miniaturized pages, too? And if so, does that count as a view for that ad? Maybe this is just a way to up their ad revenue.

Re:Ads (4, Informative)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177750)

nope,

For a few billion popular Web pages, Google will store the images of the pages. For others, it will generate the preview on the fly, in less than one-tenth of a second, Mr. Krishnan said.

source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/google-introduces-visual-previews-of-search-results/ [nytimes.com]

Re:Ads (1)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177946)

I assure you that this is definitely a way to up their ad revenue. Maybe not in the way you described, or maybe so. But either way, it is somehow meant to up their ad revenue. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise.

I liked it better as "Google Preview" (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177534)

You know the firefox add on that has been around for probably 5+ years. But hopefully they can take care of the giraffa patent.

Re:I liked it better as "Google Preview" (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177704)

Yeah I had BetterSearch doing this since forever.

We're not there yet (4, Funny)

melonman (608440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177550)

I'm holding out for Quantum Google, which displays instantly every single web page that does and could ever exist. That way I'll never need to search for anything ever again!

This has been around for the last few weeks (1)

healyp (1260440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177696)

I remember clicking the stupid magnifying glass by accident a few weeks ago, towards the end of October. I guess all that extra rendering slowed down the wired writers by about 3 weeks.

Don't like it? (2, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177702)

Me neither. And I don't like "Google Instant' either.

Know what I do about it?

I turn it off! Just turn it off and forget it was ever implemented.

If someone out there likes this stuff, fine. They can have it. That doesn't mean that the people who don't like it are forced to deal with it.

Better than Chrome's (1)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177748)

For anyone looking to compare this to the numerous chrome/firefox plugins that generate thumbnail previews:

This won't generate a request to every website in the search results list. This is very important when surfing from work (and also a good thing for security; those thumbnails have been the cause of a lot of drive-by malware infections).

Roots (1)

Garrynz (904755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178082)

Are Google forgetting how they managed to take number one from AltaVista? Fast, clean and accurate results trumps all.

Link to Instant Preview (2, Informative)

crf00 (1048098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178122)

There is now a link on Google's homepage for you to try out the instant preview feature. Or you can go from here: http://www.google.com/landing/instantpreviews/ [google.com]

Btw one other nice thing is that you can now use instant preview to easily see how exactly Google's crawler "sees" a web page. (Though yes Google Cache can show it too but is in HTML with broken CSS and images)

Good for dialup, wireless? (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178180)

Unlike Google Instant, which shuts off on slow web connections, Instant Previews is available to those on thin connections and could be more beneficial to those users than to those using fat pipes, since the question of which page to click and allow to load is far more crucial on dial-up than on a fiber connection

I am skeptical. I guess loading an image is faster than loading the actual page, but if the page is mostly text then the preview would be slower.

I also wonder how well this preview works with Web Accelerator or Opera Turbo. Oftentimes they squash images to the point where they are unintelligible - I wonder if the same would happen with google preview.

Reduces bounce rate (3, Interesting)

RighteousRaven (998592) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178220)

What's with all the hate? Lots of sites have a bounce rate between 30 and 50% [citation needed]. If seeing a half-loaded page is enough for 50 to 70% of people to
decide to leave, isn't it reasonable that a preview would be enough too?

I'd have to use it to decide if the interface is more annoying than useful (obviously)... but there's at least potential there. Heck, depending on whether google caches or optimizes the preview, this could reduce wasted bandwidth as well.

It's automation, not laziness! (5, Interesting)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178372)

"First, pressing Enter was too much work..."

No. Pressing Enter was pointless, and clicking through to the page was pointless. Obviously, if I'm taking the trouble to go to a search engine and type in words, I want to search for them. It's idiotic to have to tell the machine that. Likewise, I don't care about the links, I want the page itself, so it makes sense to pull it up right away.

The whole point of having a machine is to automate repetitive tasks, and that's what Google is doing here.

Feature's OK - But personalized filtering better (1)

Jaryn (880486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178402)

Rather than bringing up a small screenshot of each site, Google, just give me some personalized filtering options, please.

And it doesn't need to be complicated, it just need a single checkbox/radio button set like this:

[_] Do not filter my results
[X] Delete all results from domain experts-exchange.com

Bing did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34178520)

Complaints all around! But how come nobody complained when Bing started doing this months ago with plain text previews? Except visual screenshots is more useful. I, for one, enjoy the preview:
- It will also force people to think about how their sites look as a 200px wide thumbnail, which is a good thing.
- The thumbs also feature legible-size snippets of the keywords found inside the page.
- I can tab through with my arrow keys and see each page without clicking anything.
- And for all you haters, you can just turn the thing off.

Sheesh.

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>