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 Updates Its Face

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the so-many-submissions dept.

The Internet 548

whereiseljefe writes "About 12:00 am Central Time, at least when I saw it, Google changed it's face. Before it was a simplistic search engine, with a minimal front page, and now has become even more so. Those pretty tabs we have become accustomed to are now gone, and in the search results, the "summary" section at the top is now a faded blue bar (see here with a search returning ads). And the ads are a little more low key. Nice to know they are cutting back on their interface rather than adding spastically like Yahoo." Other folks noted that they've added Froogle and Local Directory pages have now been given links on the front page. Which is good, since inclusion in the main page tends to mean ready for prime time.

cancel ×

548 comments

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

About Face! (3, Insightful)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702312)

Google has a very smart team, a team who understand their market and cater to their every need. What I think is the best feature of Google is that they cater to their end-user, not their financial backers. To Google, it's important to please searchers, more so than advertisers. That makes me warm and fuzzy.

I would also point out, being a programmer myself, that reducing the bandwidth in each search is a positive goal for Google in cost reduction, and a positive side-effect to the reduction, is a much faster searching experience. Every bit counts when you have the traffic Google does.

Put them together and you have a winning team, with a winning service, and profit will ensue.

Sorry for sounding like a fan-boy, but I just can't say anything bad about Google, except maybe that the name Google is becoming annoying/overused [slashdot.org] , much like the over-play curse afforded to successful musicians.

Re:About Face! (5, Interesting)

Dr Tall (685787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702341)

except maybe that the name Google is becoming annoying/overused

But look at the poll results: Google only got 3%. I don't think it's overused in a bad way; I think it's overused because you'd be foolish to use anything else!

Re:About Face! (5, Insightful)

lamz (60321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702342)

What I think is the best feature of Google is that they cater to their end-user, not their financial backers.

What I like best about Google is that they realize that taking care of their end-users is the best way to satisfy their financial backers.

Re:About Face! (5, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702380)

exactly, there are so many retards in charge of businesses today that can't understand the simple concept that STEP 3. ???? IS NOT "PISSING OFF YOUR CUSTOMERS"

Re:About Face! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702475)

step 2. get yourself a monopoly.

sorry, but that's corporate America. Hopefully the web will keep google on it's toes.

Re:About Face! (5, Funny)

Jay Bucks (697483) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702360)

If their so smart, how come they forgot to use the all so critical flash intro page? Jason Argue about stuff [arguecity.com]

Re:About Face! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702429)

Just for grins, compare to altavista [altavista.com] . Altavista's UI is quite clean... looks like they've taken a cue from google.

Re:About Face! (4, Interesting)

rhs98 (513802) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702521)

So true about the bytes but what about this:
<script>
<!--
function sf(){document.f.q.focus();}
function c(p,l,e){var f=document.f;if (f.action && document.getElementById) {var hf=document.getElementById("hf");if (hf) {var t = "<input type=hidden name=tab value="+l+">";hf.innerHTML=t;}f.action = 'http://'+p;e.cancelBubble=true;f.submit();return false;}return true;}
// -->
should be
<script>
<!--
function sf(){document.f.q.focus();}
function c(p,l,e){var f=document.f;if(f.action&& document.getElementById){var hf=document.getElementById("hf");if(hf){var t="<input type=hidden name=tab value="+l+">";hf.innerHTML=t;}f.action='http://'+p ;e.cancelBubble=true;f.submit();return false;}return true;}
// -->
a saving of 10bytes...(I think)

Re:About Face! (0, Flamebait)

rhs98 (513802) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702535)

Ok I missed 2 more as well...
<script>
<!--
function sf(){document.f.q.focus();}
function c(p,l,e){var f=document.f;if(f.action&&document.getElementById) {var hf=document.getElementById("hf");if(hf){var t="<input type=hidden name=tab value="+l+">";hf.innerHTML=t;}f.action='http://'+p ;e.cancelBubble=true;f.submit();return false;}return true;}
// -->

WHO CARES (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702320)

NO ONE!

Froogle is getting a lot better (5, Interesting)

MrRTFM (740877) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702322)

When they first bought in the Beta it didn't look too impressive to me (not being in the US), but it works pretty well and has a hell of a lot more shops.

Despite how much I hate advertising, when I actually *want* to see adverts about a product, it is hard to find.

Generally so, but not for /, (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702324)

since inclusion in the main page tends to mean ready for prime time

This isn't true for Slashdot. Spelling mistakes and malformed HTML are common on front-page (main-page, same thing) thanks to the "editing" staff.

Re:Generally so, but not for /, (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702370)

Google isn't valid HTML either [w3.org] . And they still use an embedded style element rather than a highly-cachable external stylesheet, and still use crap like <body bgcolor=#ffffff...

Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (-1, Troll)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702325)

Subject says it all. Why?!?

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (2, Interesting)

Dr Tall (685787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702362)

They don't look like Yahoo at all. When I go to Yahoo, I have to search for the search bar. That is not how it should be, and that is not how Google is.

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702372)

That's probably because you go to the Yahoo homepage instead of the Yahoo Search homepage: http://search.yahoo.com/

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702398)

There was a time when the Yahoo homepage WAS the Yahoo Search homepage...

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (2, Informative)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702411)

Once you find the search bar on Yahoo, do a search and then compair the look and feel of the results page with the look and feel of the google results page.

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (1)

Dr Tall (685787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702450)

I just did that, and it seems to me with the change, Google looks less like Yahoo. For instance, Yahoo's ads are still in those blue boxes, whereas Google got rid of that. To what, more specifically, were you referring when you said it looked more like Yahoo? You'll have to forgive me; I'm not very observant!

Re:Why are they trying to look like Yahoo!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702440)

yahoo = 4 pages of CRAP google = a search box

Meanwhile... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702326)

Slashdot looks EXACTLY the same as it did when it first started 6 years ago.

The same godawful color schemes, ugly nexted tables, awful HTML code, etc.

Maybe slashdot should take a cue from google and update themselves.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Funny)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702486)

Slashdot looks EXACTLY the same as it did when it first started 6 years ago.

The same godawful color schemes, ugly nexted tables, awful HTML code, etc.
Maybe slashdot should take a cue from google and update themselves.
Not quite true. When I loaded this story page, it had an add for Google between the story and the comments.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Funny)

TehHustler (709893) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702502)

And it doesnt display right first time in Firefox, i have to keep pummelling F5.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Interesting)

sydb (176695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702536)

If you logged in rather than being an AC you could turn off all the colour schemes and graphics. My slashdot is quite similar in feel to google - minimal and lightweight.

However, on the tables and HTML code side, you're quite right.

Good! (5, Funny)

bfg9000 (726447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702328)

It's good to see that it's not just me. I thought it was time to reformat Windows again.

Re:Good! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702412)

Well I never really gave it much though. To early in the morning I though. I only noticed the Froogle link on it. So I thought it was out of Beta, But thats about it. I never cared for those tabs anyways so by taking them off I just ignored them like I did before.

Re:Good! (3, Informative)

crazyprogrammer (412543) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702468)

not all the tabs are gone. if you go to directory.google.com [google.com] , the tabs are still there(as of 8am CST).

Re:Good! (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702520)

They're gone as of 6 AM PST

Very minimalist (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702331)

A great example of, "less is more". No, not pagers.

This is news? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702336)

Come on... I mean, really.

A website added some links! News at 11!

Re:This is news? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702357)

If it's on Fark, it's good enough for slashdot! Anyone remember that time they actually posted a link with the fark counter script still in it?

Re:This is news? (2, Interesting)

TehHustler (709893) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702528)

I know it's a troll, but I'll offer a reply anyway

I suppose when you are talking about a website that has made SUCH an impact in our lives that people now use "to google" as a verb (expect it being added to dictionaries in a few years time) then it is pretty significant. Come on, we all (ab)use it daily.

Google's new look (-1, Redundant)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702339)

I happen to like the new look interface. Although the loss of our beloved tabs may take a little getting used to, it all seems to look a bit 'cleaner'. Much better than some search engines, who seem to place more emphasis on their adverts than on the actual reason people come to their site in the first place - to search. Good to see Google know what users want.

Puhhh (3, Funny)

pytsun (765818) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702340)

Thank God - not another facial gone wrong.

I saw (1)

j_sp_r (656354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702344)

I saw this a week ago or something, it was the dutch version btw. I dunno, maybe I'm just hallucinating but I think it is (again) old news

Re:I saw (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702459)

They've been randomly testing it on various people. I first saw it at least a month ago; I think it's at least a few weeks older than that.

who uses the main page anymore???? (0, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702349)

I just use safari or firebirds embedded google search... who needs a front page!

New google fizzles (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702351)

The new google lacks kaw-pow, pizazz! It doesn't reach out and grab you and scream in your face - read this X-TREME web page!

Look, this is 2004, and "understated" is synonymous with "loser". If you want to put the mazuma in da bank, baby, you gotta POP, SIZZLE!

And I know what I'm talking about - I'm a marketing exec in a Fortune 500.

Re:New google fizzles (1, Redundant)

Nurseman (161297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702460)

The new google lacks kaw-pow, pizazz

But it does have a new "Linux Search" link here under specialty searches. here [google.com]

Re:New google fizzles (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702489)

kaw-pow, pizazz! It doesn't reach out and grab you and scream in your face - read this X-TREME

Like Poochie The Talking dog.
And you know how successful he was.
Sorry that was the first thing that came in my mind. That and the Danimals Commercial where they introduced a new character of a Crocodile with sun glasses, which we never have seen from since.

In seriousness the stuff has a wow factor which makes you use the page 2 or 3 times until the wow ends off and you go back to work using google because it goes straight to the point without feeling like they are trying to open you wallet on every click.

high key ads (5, Interesting)

Underholdning (758194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702353)

"And the ads are a little more low key" . Really? I find them more intrusive than before, because they look like the search result, and thusly my eyes tend to catch them more than before. And I'm pretty sure that's the idea.

Re:high key ads (-1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702482)

They're clearly marked as "Sponsored Links." I can tell that they're sponsored without any sort of colour coding. Perhaps Joe Sixpack American might not find out until after he clicks a link. However, sometimes you can find truly useful, genius [google.com] links in the sponsored links column.

Frankly, I feel that Google can do no wrong.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
EFF Pioneer Award Winner
Consulting programmer for hire

Re:high key ads (1)

Flashbak (684750) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702485)

But is that such a bad thing? For the most part I find Google displays relevant ad's, so I don't mind them being there. I might even occasionally click on one, certainly don't do that elsewhere.

Maybe intrusive is a bit strong, but they certainly are more prominent. Perhaps it's just me, but it appears to be taking up more screen real-estate than before too.

I guess at least the trolls will have fun suggesting that this is an example of Google sliding towards advertisers over users.

Re:high key ads (5, Insightful)

Plutor (2994) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702498)

Sure, they look like search results, but since they're in the same place as before, my eyes have been trained to totally ignore anything on the right side of the Google Results page. Even though they're not green (or whatever) anymore, I find it hard to believe that anyone who surfs the web more than 10 minutes a week would consider those to be "intrusive ads".

GW Bush (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702355)

I bet President Bush had something to do with this change. Wait, can we put a negative spin on it? If so, it was Bush. If not, it was Google.

I mean, this is Slashdemocrats, right? Or should that be left?

Re:GW Bush (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702453)

Another website that tries to call itself a "news" site that has an anti-Bush ring to it. how come news can't just be news and not so biased.

I like it. (5, Interesting)

MrIrwin (761231) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702356)

There had been a lot of talk about Google perhaps becoming like other ad laden portals, but as ever Google have come up trumps.

I particularly like the idea of seperating "Froogle", I hope in the long term this will bias commercial support away from the generic pages. When I want to know about Hawaii "per se" I am just not interest in tour operators and hotels!

Definition (5, Interesting)

Nomihn0 (739701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702363)

The (definition) feature next to your search query does something I've sought for a long time - it searches dictionary.com. The built in "Define:search query" never worked well for me, so this is a pleasent surprise.

Re:Definition (4, Informative)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702406)

The old Google used to do this too - the term was underlined and you could click on it when there was a matching entry in dictionary.com. Obviously it wasn't prominent enough, and so they explicitly noted the definition link in this new version.

In firefox... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702365)

I'm pretty sure I've seen this interface before, well atleast the colour scheme, in firefox. I even compared it to IE and found that they were both different, was this a CSS rendering error, forgetting to include images, or the new interface?

Re:In firefox... (2, Interesting)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702442)

The interface has been in beta for a couple of months now, only being viewable to people who get sent a cookie from Google (or who otherwise stick the cookie in) - which would explain why you didn't see it in IE. You didn't have the cookie.

Re:In firefox... (2, Funny)

loyalsonofrutgers (736778) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702483)

You ned to upgrade to monkeyfox for the bug fix.

minor display change is slashdot fodder? (0, Flamebait)

mattkime (8466) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702366)

really, did someone's graphic designer girlfriend post this?

okay, not girlfriend but rpg partner?

i'm just a bit confused about where the news is here. was there a change? yes. is it of minimal importance? yes.

Re:minor display change is slashdot fodder? (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702408)

It's 7:30AM on a Monday. If you can think of something better to post... you need to be less of a morning person.

Re:minor display change is slashdot fodder? (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702417)

When one of the most-used sites on the web revises their visual design by actually making it simpler, that IS news.

Sad, but true...

Re:minor display change is slashdot fodder? (2, Insightful)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702496)

Minimal importance? Sure. People change web site designs all the time.

But, you know, zillions of people probably went "What the hell is THAT? Oh. New page layout." today. It's just that certain web sites have to stay the same, because if there's something new, people get scared.

I expect a lot of people calling tech support: "I think some hacker got to my computer. Google looks different now!"

Of course, majority will probably realize Google is just another web site, but...

Honestly (0)

VeggiePossum23 (707184) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702367)

Honestly I gotta say I got used to the old look... this is new and scary!

Tricky New Look (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702374)

I don't know. Before when the sponsored links were a different color it was easier to tell the difference between the ads and the rest. Now it looks like 2 columns of results on one page. Kind of tricky.

Google Web Alerts (5, Informative)

manmanic (662850) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702375)

Google also announced their web alerts [google.com] at the same time. Looks interesting, but not as feature complete as Google Alert [googlealert.com] which has been around for some time.

I'm not a fan of change, where it isn't needed. (0)

varmin (764895) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702377)

But I'll probably get used to it in a day or so, even though I happened to like the tabs :)
Is it just my imagination, or did the headlines in the top of the results page grow in size?

Fatal Error (5, Interesting)

CaptainBaz (621098) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702381)

Unfortunately, it still doesn't validate [w3.org] !

Re:Fatal Error (5, Interesting)

tlianza (454820) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702454)

That's kind of funny... I guess it doesn't pay to write "proper" (X)HTML.

I wonder if they skipped the doctype tag because it's relatively pointless for this level of basic HTML, and wasn't worth the bandwith demands to include it.

This is news? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702382)

Sheesh. In related news, the bored masses are now submitting stories that AREN'T NEWSWORTHY.

Re:This is news? (3, Insightful)

Hemos (2) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702426)

Hah. My thoughts exactly. I almost added a droll comment about the sheer amount of submissions on SOMETHING THAT MATTERS NOT AT ALL, while meanwhile, Mars has confirmed methane which means most probably microbial life.

I don't like it (5, Interesting)

Trikenstein (571493) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702388)

No change to functionality that I can see.

All they did was change the layout.

With the old layout I could navigate the page blindfolded.
I had mouse movements down pat.
The tabs being close to the first search result was handy.
Now you have to navigate to the very top, center of the page.

I've never seen a reason to change an interface, just to change it.

Re:I don't like it (3, Insightful)

TwistedGreen (80055) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702490)

But they changed more than the interface.

Doing a quick test search, I've noticed that it's so much more responsive. They did tweake the interface, but they also optimized download time. Think of how many searches are done every minute. Even a small size reduction can quickly add up!

It wasn't broken, why fix it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702392)

The new look may be simpler but the old one had familiarity going for it.

Now that MS and Yahoo are picking up the pace and investing heavily against Google to outcompete it, is this really the time to change Google's look? Search functionality may be all that matters to a geek, but Google is mainstream now and has to worry about mainstream concerns, like "Branding". Google's old look was part of the Google "brand".

I may come off like Chicken Little given that this is such a small thing to be concerned about, but sometimes in the face of heavy competition the smallest things can turn the tide. I've seen it happen.

Web Alerts (1)

WallaceSz (643543) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702397)

Another new feature is the Google Web Alerts [google.com] , which seems to be a simple version of the existing independent API-based Google Alert [googlealert.com] service. Is this the first example of a Google API application being copied by the mother ship?

Get your Google Account!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702434)

https://www.google.com/accounts/

sign up now!

Re:Web Alerts (1)

markkellman (662190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702474)

Had a look at the two services. Both seem easy to use. Google Alert [googlealert.com] seems to offer more advanced features for personalizing an alert. It also offers deeper searching per search term.

time will tell... (3, Interesting)

Lord Haha (753617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702401)

I will admit removing the little bits of excess are nice, but I actually liked the tabs, and used them alot (for images/news in particular) and liked them being under the search bar as my mouse would have been closer to that...

Anyways time will tell how this goes... On the flip side this is one site that can handle the /. effect so we can all at least have an equal chance to troll about our opinions...

"...rather than adding spastically like Yahoo" (2, Funny)

general_re (8883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702403)

Bad submitter! Don't you know how Slashdot works during an election season? You have to find some way to blame these spastic additions on George Bush!

That has been around.. (4, Informative)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702405)

This has been around for a while. It was completely random for a while (for testing one would assume). I used to have a bookmark that would toggle the look back and forth, but I seem to have misplaced it.

Problems with new google and firefox (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702416)

The new Google site looks terrible! It is all misrendered and messed up using mozilla firefox! Screenshot of google [csvs.co.uk]

GOATSE.CX (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702505)

parent is a goatse screenshot!

I want my old google back (5, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702418)

I noticed the new interface just before this story was posted. I don't really like it. I much prefered the old "tabbed" interface. While the newer interface is minimalistic, it almost looks amaturish.

For instance, Google groups search result pages looks like they are formatted for a 800x600 resolution screen. Viewing it at a higher resolution forces a large white space between the search listings and the ads. I would have much prefered for the results to take up this space, fitting more results on the page at a time. If the group name is long, then the "View Thread" becomes unnatural looking wrapped between two lines. (example [google.com] )

Maybe it's just new, but hopefully it'll grow on me.

Its about usability (4, Insightful)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702470)

The problem with the tabbed Google interface was that too many clickable elements were in the same space. I frequently found myself clicking on something other than the "Groups" tag by mistake, for example.

Wrong page brother. (3, Informative)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702419)

Nice to know they are cutting back on their interface rather than adding spastically like Yahoo.

You're thinking of Yahoo! the web portal. Yahoo!'s search engine page [yahoo.com] looks pretty plain to me. They haven't added anything to it.

Re:Wrong page brother. (-1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702507)

Yahoo!'s search page is an abomination. I know what "News" is, so why clutter the interface with a colourful graphic?

The faux-tabbed interface that Yahoo! uses for its so-called "search" page is nothing more than a poorly-thought-out, marketroid-approved, ad-laden pissmonger of a front-end. Good day, sir.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Cobblerknick Paddywonger

slashdotted already! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702427)

page is down after 27 comments
google cache here [216.239.39.104]

/. could learn from this (0, Redundant)

smartin (942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702430)

Less is better. I'd like to see /. tone down their page as well, particularily that big honking ad on the right hand side. (yeah i know, subscribe if you don't want to see it, or block it, yada yada). What ever, it's a waste of both space and bandwidth.

What would be cool is if you could configure a web site to use your one stylesheet.

Mirror (5, Funny)

CleverNickedName (644160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702431)

In case of Slashdotting, here [216.239.51.104] is the Google cache.

Google Web Alerts & Personalised Search Page (2, Informative)

kieranbenton (642814) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702433)

Is it me or are these new additions? Both look to be quite interesting, could be useful to know if new pages appear on a closely defined research topic. Not too sure about the personalised search yet havent had enough chance to play... Google Labs Link [google.com]

updated adsense as well (5, Informative)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702435)

If you guys use Google's adsense, you might have noticed that have lot of new themes as well. I guess, to make the Ads blend in more with your webpages, and make them lowkey.

P.S. Google Adsense is Ad banner engine, using which you can add Ads on your website and generate some ca$h

I feel bad posting without reading the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702438)

But I did manage to read the article. When the summary turned into a detailed description, I figured it'd be quicker to just click on the link and see it for myself. Did I miss anything in the last half of the paragraph? Any insightful comments from the /. editors? I'm glad it wasn't slashdotted yet, from Slashdot readers or people at work going, "It's changed, really??" and then clicking refresh a dozen times in disbelief.

Slashdotted... (0, Redundant)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702444)

Can someone mirror it please?

Somebody please update the Wikipedia! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702467)

The wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article for Google [wikipedia.org] still has the old look on the page. Could some one with a decent looking screenshot of the new google please add it?

compatibility (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702477)

is this thing compatible with XP/IE6.0 only, just like some yahoo related sites, or is it also compatible with Linux/Mac + Mozilla/safari/opera??? How can I enable java scripts and popup ads? active-x, anyone?

The ads are less discernible (2, Insightful)

unborn (415272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702480)

I fail to see how the now undistiguishable ads are any better than before. They seem to be "merged" with the rest of the interface and that is NOT good at all.

Different versions of Google (5, Informative)

Pete (big-pete) (253496) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702481)


I find it interesting to see the slight variations of Google...geeky although it might seem - when I type http://www.google.com/ [google.com] I am thrown to http://www.google.be/ [google.be] , so when I really want http://www.google.com/ [google.com] I type http://www.google.com./ [www.google.com] instead of using the "Go to Google.com" button (which sends me to the google.com page with a "Go to Google Belgium" button.

The definitive address with the dot at the end introduces itself as Google English in the graphic, but still has a "Go to Google.com" button, whilst clearly being the genuine definitive http://www.google.com./ [www.google.com] ...but this version doesn't have the link to Froogle [google.com] ... :)

Phew - that's enough links to Google for one day!

-- Pete.

Lynx (4, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702487)

What's curious, it looks in Lynx almost the same as in Mozilla!

Say what you want, I like it!

Google H4x0r (5, Funny)

capncook (115312) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702491)

The Google interface is available in many languages [google.com] , including H4x0r! [google.com]

I don't like it (2, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702501)

(1) The boxes made different length strings "web", "groups", "news" take up equal space. Now "web", the most important, has the smallest amount of space. It's the hardest to "hit".

(2) I don't want Froogle on every page. I don't go to Google to shop. It's okay in the "More".

Google begins to go the way of all search engines:
not a single one has not faded away yet. If this one isn't eventually replaced by another, it will be the first.

elooG still works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8702508)

at least elgooG [alltooflat.com]
still works!

Dead you say ? (1, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702511)


http://www.google.com/bsd

The requested URL /plan9 was not found on this server.

oh well, I can wait.

Details of pagerank system also revealed (3, Funny)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702513)

here [google.com] , however, I suspect this may have leaked out 3 days too early.

Simple Can Be Better (3, Insightful)

mikesmind (689651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702516)

I like simple interfaces. While I use Firefox for most of my browsing, I also like Dillo a lot. The new Google interface reminds of how many websites come up in Dillo. While Dillo lacks many features, (that other browsers include by default) this is done by design. It is supposed to be very lightweight and for many browsing tasks, Dillo works just fine. It's good to see that Google is going for less clutter and overhead, while so many others are charging in the other direction.

Other languages not supported yet (3, Interesting)

Claws Of Doom (721684) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702522)

I have google set to appear in Welsh by default, and that frontpage has not changed. It is only the english/standard frontpage that has changed as far as I can see.

I see the translation teams have some work to do...

Back in the Day (0, Offtopic)

jwbing (447164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8702529)

I used to use Webcrawler [webcrawler.com] exclusively for all my search and homepage needs. Then I noticed Google, which was still very much in its infancy. I switched to Google as I was still using an old 14.4 modem, and Webcrawler was becoming a bit more bloated than I liked. Even though I now have broadband I am very happy that both Webcrawler and Google have maintained a function over form attitude.
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>