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 Testing Completely Revamped Look

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the makeover-time dept.

Google 195

SharkLaser writes "Google's search engine has always looked pretty much the same since it was introduced in 1998. However, Google is now testing a revamped look that is the largest change the search engine has ever done to its website. The new look strips the black bar running horizontally at top and places it as an openable menu on the left side. The move is said to promote Google's other services without making the search engine too cluttered. The new side menu is also more similar to Chrome OS and allows Chromebook and Google's website to have the same look and feel. Another consequence of the move is that it now takes users two clicks to enter other services such as Images and News, which is said to improve the amount of ad clicks and visitors advertisers get. Considering that European Commission is examining claims of Google downgrading rival websites and U.S. senators are calling FTC to inspect Google for unfair practices, the move comes at a surprising time."

cancel ×

195 comments

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

Googlebashing every second article? (5, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564792)

Getting desperate much? Is this a new year project? Submitter [slashdot.org] is almost exclusively a Googlebashing troll.

And the Googlebashing has no connection to the rest of the fine summary.

Slow news cycle I guess. Let's put something else in the queue.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (4, Funny)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564844)

Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565114)

Slashdot is between! My between!
"Slashdot is between! My between!"
'Slashdot is between! My between!'
"Slashdot" is between! My between!
Slashdot "is" between! My between!
Slashdot is "between!" My between!
Slashdot is between! My "between!"
Slashdot is between! "My" between!
Slashdot is between! "My between!"

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565664)

Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...

You spelled "Micro$oft" wrong.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (2, Insightful)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564884)

Why do you think it's bashing? It's reporting news. Just because it's Google doesn't mean they should not be reported, just like Microsoft, Apple and other companies. Or are you saying we should give Google a pass on every time just because you love them?

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565146)

I just find the inclusion of stuff about the law suits to be really stupid. I get that you wanted to fill out the summary since the entirety of the article could be reduced down to. Google has slightly changed the look of their site, making their non search related features more prominent.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1, Insightful)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565176)

It's relevant because the lawsuits are already about Google promoting their own services over competitor ones in search results. This move might be because they needed to move the promotion off the search results and give them space in more prominent "Google's stuff" place, or they didn't care about the investigations and just went full force promoting their own services. Regardless, it is relevant.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565216)

Giving prominence to your own services on your own website is hardly controversial. Looking at your article submissions I would say you are pushing an agenda of your own. This is the internet though and it's not like you can even expect real journalists not to push their own views. Still you could be less obvious about it.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (4, Interesting)

dnewt (2457806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565296)

If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565566)

Illegal is for the courts to decide. In the US at least they seem to be leaning in favor of the first amendment. In the US the content of a US website is a freedom of speech issue beyond the power of the government to regulate. At least for now.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (2)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565298)

It is when they're pushing them in the usual search results. It's somewhat cheating, and certainly not honest. That's why Google is probably giving them that prominence by moving them to better places, but outside the search results. That's what EU has been giving them trouble for, anyway.

SharkLaser is one of Apple Troll bonch's Accounts (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565482)

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565400)

Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565486)

Like hell it is. Real journalism is about reporting facts and *maybe* asking some leading or interesting questions about said facts. Journalists that push their own views belong solely on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper, despite what the idiots at FOX, CNN, and just about every other major news source in the US would have you believe.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565524)

Journalism is necessarily directed by interest, and the questions asked are necessarily directed by distinct concerns about distinct details. The world is composed of innumerable facts, and to report all of them without discrimination is to completely undermine journalism. To be a journalist is, inherently, to discriminate between which facts are important and which facts are unimportant. That is by definition pushing a view.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

NicknameOne (2525178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565986)

Serious give it a rest. You are clearly and idiot and a Microsoft shill (but I repeat myself).

Idiots like you are making slashdot unreadable these days first by not letting all articles get to the front page using your alternate accounts and the by your top posting with your anti-Google and pro-Microsoft agenda. It's getting fucking annoying.

This idiot is the same guy that also owns all the other shill accounts like cmdrpony, insignin140bytes and interestingfella. The other accounts got karma bombed to oblivion so I guess they are no longer posting in tech articles so they can regain their karma and start shilling again.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565038)

Thanks for your opinion, Google shill.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565050)

Google is a mediocre company and its only redeeming feature is that it's slightly better than all its competitors at its core competency: general Internet search.

In this way, it's settling itself in the place Microsoft enjoyed for the last 20 years with its OS+desktop Office combination.

As it has followed Microsoft so it will mature like Microsoft. Why not report things as they are, even if you don't like the facts?

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565088)

Google has a lot of brilliant people working for it. Unfortunately there is a lot of incompetent managers like Vic Gundotra, who has almost ruined Google+'s potential with his stupid policies, or Andy Rubin, one of the biggest hypocrites ever. The latter are the ones you hear about in the news. The engineers, they try to do their job the best way they can.

--
There is a new arrogant asshole [mailto] in town!

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565876)

This comment is a paraphrase of a similar comment referencing Microsoft and Steve Ballmer. Interesting.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (2)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565126)

Google products (mostly services) represents a completely different paradigm to Microsoft products (mostly software), call it post-desktop or whatever, but it's not even fully-realized yet. It's a bit pre-mature to compare them to Microsoft.

It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.

Re:Googlebashing every second article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565790)

I fail to see the bashing. TFA says Google is testing a new look (fact), but doesn't really draw any conclusions on whether the new look is a good or bad thing.

phase i: do no evil (0, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564810)

phase ii/ order 66: do only evil

MUAHAHAHAHA

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Order_66 [wikia.com]

i'm joking but in all seriousness, i know a lot of slashdotters think of google as a darling, but google represents something else now: power. and all power is eventually corrupted

I, for one, (1)

jhesse (138516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564858)

am shifting my interweb searching to search engines that don't productize me. [duckduckgo.com]

Re:I, for one, (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564898)

That's one vote for Bing: the Decider engine. Anybody else looking to bing their own Internet?

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565648)

Wow. You are such a fanboi. A boring fanboi but a fanboi nonetheless.

Re:I, for one, (0, Troll)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564904)

It's actually kind of funny that Slashdotters seem to be so in love with DuckDuckGo, especially considering that it uses Bing as back-end. Guess it doesn't matter if it just doesn't clearly say Microsoft somewhere in the site. Just shows that Bing actually provides good search results.

Re:I, for one, (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564966)

But it really doesn't find good results and now that I know it has Bing for it's search, I see why. It has some neat features, but I actually tried to use it and ended up going back to Google because I couldn't find stuff.

Re:I, for one, (5, Informative)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564972)

DDG gets search results from over 50 sources [duckduckgo.com] .

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565012)

But most of the time, they're search results look like Bing. Maybe the other sources are Yahoo and the likes?

Re:I, for one, (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565028)

Isn't using Yahoo technically still using Bing [techreport.com] ? I wonder if the results are counted twice if they come up in Yahoo and Bing over-inflating the result.

Re:I, for one, (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564938)

+1 for duckduckgo [wikipedia.org] , local Philly startup, will be default search engine for Linux Mint 12.

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565438)

I've been using DDG because I'm running Mint 12 and it's default. So far it works most of the time, but I still like Google better

Re:I, for one, (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565784)

I'd never even heard of DuckDuckGo, and then suddenly I see all sorts of "testimonials" in this thread. That seems really odd, especially given that, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , it is now starting to occasionally be ad-funded (whereas before it was totally funded by its developer). Coincidence, or astroturfing?

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565934)

> I'd never even heard of DuckDuckGo

I've been using it for about two years, so it's not exactly new on the block.

> it is now starting to occasionally be ad-funded

Not "starting", it has been so for at least a year, small drawn ads sometimes appear in the right-hand column.

I would never notice. (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564834)

Agreed that this is hardly earth shattering news. I have to ask though, does anyone actually use the google.com start page? I'm either using Gmail, or search from the URL Bar in Chrome, or from the dedicated Google box in whatever other browser I'm using. The only time I see Google's start page is when I do a fresh install.

Re:I would never notice. (2)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564838)

It's not only start page, it's across all pages.

Re:I would never notice. (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564846)

I rarely see the start page, but this looks like it affects the results pages also.

Re:I would never notice. (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565108)

I use the start page mostly to avoid gmail in my face. Funny how I use Google more to search than for mail. And Bookmarks. And Reader.

Re:I would never notice. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565700)

I use a customized iGoogle page as my start page.

On a side note - I'd forgotten Google used to include an exclamation point in their logo [bbcimg.co.uk] . Bring back the exclamation - make Google exciting once again! They should just steal Yahoo's, since they really don't deserve one anymore...

Completely Revamped Look (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564836)

"Completely Revamped Look"

Its hardly as if they turned the front page into a clone of yahoo with too much information yelling at you.

They just moved the top to the left. I don't see why this is even news.

Re:Completely Revamped Look (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565144)

This is profound because Google's appeal is in its simple, link-based appearance. Now it's beginning to look like a MySpace, with all the boxy web2.0 menus, and that's not good. Take a look at Youtube, and consider that may be the direction they're heading.

Like all big companies who hunger for constant growth, Google will only get worse as time goes on, and may even face a speedier than usual decline unless they actually sell shit (real hardware or software products, not just sets of "mouse clicks") like Microsoft and Apple do. Unless sekrit CIA and NSA funding is keeping them afloat.

Re:Completely Revamped Look (2)

Skreems (598317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565402)

and may even face a speedier than usual decline unless they actually sell shit (real hardware or software products, not just sets of "mouse clicks") like Microsoft and Apple do

You must not have looked recently... they have stores for music, movies, and books, and have for at least 6 months or so.

Re:Completely Revamped Look (2)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565610)

It's really not news to anyone who uses Google products. It's their Google+ menu now on the search page.
In general they are whitespacing and boxpadding things up, but this new menu is basically my current iGoogle pulldown menu with icons.

google become unusable without javascript (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38564860)

that sucks

REVAMPED OR LIMBO-READY ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38564874)

Hmmm?

It's like Google is becoming Yahoo (4, Insightful)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564892)

I get the old version of Google if I'm using my desktop but the new one with my laptop. It's very annoying. Reminds me of the multiple versions of yahoo that I use to get. And worse, it's starting to feel that google.com is turning into the latest "portal" website.

The new interface requires more mouse movement than the older and cleaner google. It now takes one drop menu and one side expansion menu to get to "finance". Plus, sometimes my search query doesn't transfer from "web" (now "search") to "images" or "finance".

Re:It's like Google is becoming Yahoo (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564982)

well they do have a portal version of their site... going back a while already. (igoogle.com)

it's just that people don't actually want to use it so they have to bring it to the main page.

why o why (1)

mynicknamewasused (962741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564900)

the UI WAS perfect, as i browse in a 1280x200 window... i guess iÂll have to buy an aditional monitor for the browser!

will it be customizable? i sure hope so!

Re:why o why (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564998)

the UI WAS perfect, as i browse in a 1280x200 window...

wow man, that's a skinny monitor. you should get four of them, stack them high. Then you'll approach 1280x800, which may give you better results when surfing the web.

Re:why o why (1)

mynicknamewasused (962741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565092)

the rest is used by other programs (productivity tools), i like to have a browser always on screen, thus the weird windows size,

Re:why o why (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565172)

The illogic of that practice has led to the first time in my life that I learned of a person's usage pattern and thought "that's objectively stupid."

And this is after once spending six days tracking down a bug that it turned out was caused by a man who capitalizes with caps lock instead of shift.

Re:why o why (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565550)

I'm almost scared to ask, what is the difference between using capslock and shift? It seems like too much effort for me, but how could it affect a program?

Re:why o why (1)

mynicknamewasused (962741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565744)

hey!, i need the browser to be hidden from casual view!, this way noone notices!

Classic (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564906)

Google would do well to offer something like-

http://classic.google.com/ [google.com]

That turns the clock back even more. No animations, no music, no pop-up junk on the side for search results (instant previews or whatever they call it), etc.

I think that Google might need to offer new stuff to attract the type of person that finds the likes of Bing amusing. Having choice is a good thing. However, forcing [yet more] eye candy on people is going to alienate those (like me, who are already irritated) who just want minimal, fast, simple. Something that isn't distracting, irritating, CPU loading, complex, and doesn't use mouseovers or javascript. Personally, I would even prefer a new domain for it, like cgoogle.com so it can be easily whitelisted.

Re:Classic (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565118)

Sure would be nice. But google seems to be having a "automaker" complex. "We're so big, we're so great, we're so kick ass. The peons will take what we give them and like it. Where else will they go?" For those that don't get it, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC and so on said the same thing back when Japan was crushing them in the 70's and 80's. AMC didn't survive. Chrysler nearly didn't.

Yeah I really don't like the changes at all, and by going with what's been said on their groups pages? The majority there don't like it at all. But then again, those are the people who can find them.

Re:Classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565120)

why dont you just use wget and some shell scripting so you can perform ./google -s "search term" -r 10

then you dont ever need to visit google directly through a web browser :)

if you prefer to use the browser, why not just use the google API and make your own custom portal!?

there are plenty of options.

the problem with google offering a different UI is that it fragments the user experience, and thus, their market base. not to mention the added overhead of having another subdomain/domain to maintain.

Re:Classic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565152)

For exactly these reasons I moved to Duck Duck Go and never looked back.

Re:Classic (4, Informative)

Katatsumuri (1137173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565520)

You can try http://www.google.com/m [google.com] - not exactly what you want, but might be useful in some cases, like old computers or slow connection perhaps.

Re:Classic (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565748)

Or maybe google shouldn't cater to the one nerdy idiot who doesn't even want Javascript to run on the page.

bring back the 1998 design. (1, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564910)

it's way better. why do you think I'd like to have links to my mail and notifications on my page? if I wanted a fucking portal I'd have stuck with altavista.

Surprising Time? How so? (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564916)

How is it a surprising time? A few ongoing legal procedures means that they can't make aesthetic changes to their website? Also, it does not take "two clicks" to enter Google Images - just a mouseover and a click.

I'm pretty sure the last two sentences were just tacked on as flamebait, as they are either false or unrelated.

Great ... more javablot (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564958)

for shit I (and many others) dont care about, if we did we would have clicked the links at the top of the page, we are not stupid or blind but thanks for thinking we are

Google is like a TV network (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564964)

How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.

Re:Google is like a TV network (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565240)

How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.

If you have overwhelming dominance in one area, it is illegal to leverage that dominance to gain in other markets. It is legal to bundle shampoo and conditioner and sell them as a package right up until you gain dominance (guidance is 70%) of either the shampoo or conditioner market. As far as I know, no one has alleged Fox has 70% market share of, well any market. Google, on the other hand is estimated to have reached this dominance in several markets including mobile advertising where some put their market share as high as 98%. Bundling their other services then becomes a question for the courts.

All that said, the summary for this article was a bit off in that revamping their main search page does not seem to have bundled any more or fewer services with their search.

Re:Google is like a TV network (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565922)

Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.

Google. Shark. Jump. (0)

minkie (814488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38564994)

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

I could, but there's no need. The title says it all.

Marketing drone in TFA sez: (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565014)

"If you compare the original Google home page to today's version, you will see that a makeover every so often can certainly be refreshing."

This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site. No, a makeover on a familiar (good) interface is not "refreshing." It's irritating, especially since it pretty much always means adding clutter to something that used to be clean and functional. It is usually pushed on users with a patronizing explanation, after a "beta" period in which people loudly and repeatedly point out its flaws, and the new interface eventually becomes the default (or only) choice with none of the problems found in "beta" addressed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there's something wrong, fine, fix that and leave the rest alone. And for God's sake, listen to the users.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565138)

I sort of disagree--change can be refreshing, but can easily be a hassle. On the PS3, Netflix has changed the design quite often. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not. The worst design change was when they briefly took away the "recently watched" section from the home screen. Made watching TV shows a very painful process.

That said, I like Google's current design a lot better than the old design(s). My only complaint is that the black at the top doesn't match other Google properties. The new design looks better, but I'm surprised you have to go through more motions to open something common, such as image search. That's a silly move in my mind, and it seems like it would be better to have the main menu items always visible, with the extended menu items showing up on mouseover for each root menu item (sort of a combination of the new look and the current look). Also, having "Google" show up in the top left and the center of the page looks redundant.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565208)

Well, I'll admit to being something of an interface Luddite -- most of my favorite web sites looked better, IMO, 10+ years ago. If we could have 20th-century interface simplicity with 21st-century connectivity, I'd be a happy camper. I have no idea if this is a majority opinion or not.

If the majority of users of a site I frequent prefer a new interface, as long as the content's good, I'll generally go along with it. What bugs me, like I said, is the combination of change-for-change's-sake with the patronizing way such changes are usually presented, including vague claims of "users love our new interface" when it's obvious that user preference runs strongly against it. Three of my favorite sites (Slashdot, Salon.com, and Weather Underground -- at least http://classic.wunderground.com/ [wunderground.com] is still available in the last instance) have done this fairly recently, so I'm kind of twitchy about it.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565276)

I can get behind change for the sake of change being a poor motivation. But if you are going to make functionality improvements, I see that as a good reason to change aesthetics. As a random example (because I happened to be on the site when I got the reply notification), GOG's current interface blows away their old one. Their old one was fine, but the new one has a lot more functionality, and they tied that functionality addition with a UI facelift. I think that's a good way to do it, because having a visual change encourages users to look for other changes, and thus discover the functionality changes.

Moving links around because you're bored, though, isn't worthwhile, unless it's to simplify or improve flow. (Microsoft Office is a prime example of this, seemingly moving icons around all over the place for no discernible reason. I'm not a ribbon hater, but there are some fairly obvious ways it could be improved.)

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565534)

I can get something like the /. changes, but there's still a search box and a button. What's different about the primary UI? Is it harder to search? Are people actually confused about it?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (2)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565222)

I agree. Who do these people think they are, trying new things and working to progress the state of the art? Don't they know that people want things to stay the same way forever?

I'm only going to continue to use their excellent, free services grudgingly, because it's not exactly what I want it to be, and that's evil.

Can we start spelling it G$$gle yet?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565388)

Welcome to the Internet.

If you don't like using their "cloud", GTFO.
-The Internet

P.S. If you don't have the snap to figure out that it's YOUR BROWSER that's displaying their content, and that you can control YOUR BROWSER such that it can be customize the pages it displays however you like: Well then, I don't have the patience to teach you how to do it... You'll just have to "Bing" userscripts yourself, (ugh...).

P.P.S. My local grocer changed his store layout to make it easier for their stockers, thus saving them money and providing me better services. Fortunately I'm a human not a statically programmed state machine, and I adapted quite easily. I find it humorous that you should complain about minor changes to anything.
Adapt or become extinct -- It's a law of nature you know?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565964)

That is the exact point you dumb shit. People are complaining. Google can listen or people will leave. Damn are youa stupid individual.

And you are probably so unproductive that you think wassting your time with userscripts is worthwhile. Damn are you dumb as my left nut.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38566040)

This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site.

It's a great argument against using cloud computing

You never know when your service provider want to do a "makeover" of the visual interface, ruining your productivity.

Compared to the horrible changes happening to Gmail, the so called "new look", the search interface bastardization and "makeover" to make the UI more complicated and harder to use are just benign.

It doesn't even make sense. "Cookies" and user preferences were invented in the 1990s. Why the hell are users still getting forced to switch to new UIs, when the simple capability has long existed to provide users a choice, and even the possibility of user-specific custom UIs?

Why risk what works? (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565044)

Google used to receive mystery emails from this random guy, one every month, containing nothing but a single number.

After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!.

Fast forward to today, and the double-layer of scrolling frames on the new front page looks suspiciously like Word 2010 or Facebook. Not nearly as bad, mind you, but suddenly showing some disturbing similarity.

I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.

Google: you make the vast majority of your money on the ads that go with your simple, powerful search engine. Don't fuck it up by filling your products with endless references to your other products and trying to control the entire internet.

Re:Why risk what works? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38566070)

I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.

These days Google has implemented spam filtering, so the periodic e-mails with numbers in them probably wind up in /dev/null

Come to think of it... I think any e-mail to google winds up in /dev/null, after being answered by an automated system that basically tells you "Little Ant, why don't you try go posting in the forums, or something"

Unity (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565068)

Ummm.... we don't like Unity.... please do not make your website look like it.... :)

Not a fan... (1)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565106)

I had no idea it was limited. As one of these random testers I'm not a fan of the new look. I just switched back to the old look for gmail and calendar. The old look while not as clean in over all design presents the information much clearer. The borders are of higher contrast and text is easier to read. Also going from gmail to calendar used to be a single link, now it requires clicking the drop down menu, going to the bottom for more, then back up to the top for calendar.

But as I use ad block + and give google no money, I'm neither customer nor product so I guess I can't complain...

One change would be welcomed (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565154)

The page as it is now is fine, but it needs one thing changed. The black bar with gray text is hard to read. Why are web designers so obsessed with making their pages so hard to read? A little more contrast please.

It extends to programs, too. A lot of photographic software has a gray on black interface. Give me a choice of skins or at least a break!

Re:One change would be welcomed (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565558)

The page as it is now is fine, but it needs one thing changed. The black bar with gray text is hard to read. Why are web designers so obsessed with making their pages so hard to read? A little more contrast please.

Isn't this part of what CSS what supposed to do?

Re:One change would be welcomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565928)

Agreed

Been there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565196)

I don't know how this is news because I have been seeing this new look in my chrome browser for about a month now. Once I log into my gmail account the new look appears.

Google sucks (0)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565202)

The first time I saw this 'new look' page on Google I wondered what the heck was going on. Then I realised that it just fscking sucked.

So now that Google is a steaming pile of useless 'features' that spews out millions of results that have nothing to do with the query I entered, what search engine should I switch to?

Re:Google sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565346)

uh... http://duckduckgo.com/

Re:Google sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565468)

Agree. It's awful.

I've been having problems with it all morning - my searches often turn up empty on the first try, and typing in new search terms sometimes backs me up to a previous search.

Hey Google! Ever heard the saying, "If it works, don't fuck with it"?

One of the unlucky testers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565230)

I'm one of those unlucky people to be selected for testing the new interface, It requires more clicks now to do simple operations and the side panel has a habit of appearing and disappearing as you move the mouse, quite distracting. Plus there are multiple ways (confusing in my opinion) to the the same thing, eg to bring up your gmail. Wish there was an option to go back to the previous look and feel.

Re:One of the unlucky testers (5, Informative)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565462)

Click the gear icon. Select revert to classic.

For how long this will work...

New? (1)

rbowen (112459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565326)

I guess I'm special. I've been seeing this "new" look for a couple of weeks now.

Re:New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565758)

It has come up a few times for me in the past few weeks, but then it goes away. I hate this crazy soft launch stuff google does. I got to see the new gmail tasks UI and really liked it, but then it was gone again the very next day.

No don't change! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565336)

How will my Grandpa find his pr0n !

You'll get over it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565364)

Yep [tvtropes.org]

Also the next version of Chrome is removing the "+" on the new tab button so get ready for complaints about that.

Also butthurters gonna hurt.

Already switched (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565456)

I used Google for years, but recently made the move to DuckDuckGo. The interface is so much nicer. I was tired of the search results changing, the redirect notices, the Google page constantly got in the way. DDG is smooth sailing, like Google was a few years ago.

Why can't people speak English? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565574)

From the article:

"Constant revision and improvement is part of our overarching philosophy," he said.

What is the difference between an overarching philosophy and a philosophy?

I don't see any new look. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38565602)

What is this article talking about? Google looks exactly the same as it has for months.

Who the F uses the Google page anyway? (2)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565666)

Lots of complaining going on here. I probably wouldn't like the new look myself, as I much prefer simple, uncluttered interfaces anyway. But I can't remembrer the last time I had to go directly to the google.com website. Searches happen through the dedicated search box in Opera or Firefox, not by navigating to google.com. I also don't use any of their services, from calendar to google apps.

Now get offa my lawn.

The horrible truth (1)

zammer990 (2225956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38565954)

If Google ruins the browser, we may have to start using... Safar- no wait I'll just keep using Chrome.

Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38566062)

Saw this change a couple of weeks ago then it went away.

I like the bar on top better...

Re:Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38566082)

Agreed, old news, it has been like this constantly for the past month.

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>