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!

Preview Google's New Search Results Page

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss dept.

191

ubermiester writes "Ars Technica demonstrates how to copy and paste a bit of JavaScript to preview a facelifted Google. Ars points out that 'the changes are minimal, but they give some insight into Google's plans.'" I thought we already knew those: world domination.

cancel ×

191 comments

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

World Domination? (5, Funny)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004837)

Apparently the first step towards world domination is to move the category tabs to the left of the search results. Ooh, I'm scared too.

Re:World Domination? (-1, Offtopic)

mistrykam (526647) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004937)

This link gets you to the new interface: http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=Natalie%20Portman [google.com]

Re:World Domination? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005043)

What an amazing GUI, so I squeeze the left.... Oh nevermind...

Re:World Domination? (0, Offtopic)

weiqj (870224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004957)

How can I directly reply the article?

Re:World Domination? (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005104)

How can I directly reply the article?

At the top of the comments there should be a reply button to right of the treshold dropdown menus.

Re:World Domination? (0)

niXcamiC (835033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004965)

Whats with the troll mod, I mean, maybe offtopic or funny, but troll?

Re:World Domination? (0, Redundant)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005029)

The next step will be to flash quick subliminal messages on the screen when you mouse-over selected pixels in the search results...Urgh, actually that's my plan...never mind!

Re:World Domination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005332)

blipverts!

Serious question (1)

weiqj (870224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005060)

The usability of this web site sucks. Now I can not directly reply to the article. I can only "reply the replies". Can anybody help me?

Re:Serious question (1)

KarateExplosions (959215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005232)

You can reply to the main posting by clicking on the button cleverly marked "Reply". Slashdot knew that the best way to confurse new users who wanted to post a reply would be to create a button with the word "reply" on it. So far, so good.

Re:World Domination? (1, Interesting)

neersign (956437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005340)

web domination: check
tv domination: pending

any notice that google is popping up in odd places on tv? the instances that pop in to my mind are a Pontiac advert and CSI. the pontiac ad tells you to "Google Pontiac for more info" and they show the google homepage with pontiac being typed in to the search. In the CSI I saw last night (it was a repeat, but can't remember the episode name), some one was in the lab searching google for some information. Though the actor didn't say "i searched google" or anything like that, they did show them lookin at the google page for a few seconds.

similarly, i was watching Tiger Woods get interviewed on 60 Minutes last night, and at teh end of the interview they said "go to Yahoo and search for Tiger Woods to get more info."

i would assume that the "google music" search result page is soon going to expand in to other areas, such as car pages and tv pages....wait and see

First post (-1, Offtopic)

arkanoid (684793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004838)

Yeay!!

btw (0, Offtopic)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004846)

FYI, Google made it to the S&P 500 [tmcnet.com] which, in addition to being a good milestone itself, means many mutual funds must purchase their stock which is at the moment is back in business. [google.com]

Re:btw (0, Redundant)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005139)

Is a dupe not a dupe when the dupe is a comment and the story got posted a few days ago [slashdot.org] ?

To be honest... (5, Insightful)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004851)

I've read the article on the Ars Technica forum, and all the comments there. I'm inclined to think this is a nice change, but honestly, all they did was move the top links to a bar on the left. Its nice, and will probably look slightly better on my widescreen laptop, but its such a small change, I doubt many people will notice once it goes live.

Re:To be honest... (5, Funny)

user24 (854467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004876)

I doubt many people will notice once it goes live.

you kidding? this is google we're talking about, GOOGLE!!
It's a revolutionary new approach to search, it's the next best thing, it's marvellous, it's hip cool and groovy, sheesh.. 'no-one will notice' indeed...

Re:To be honest... (1)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004969)

The reason I say no one will notice is because, if you read the comments on the Ars Technica forums, apparently, this has been randomly appearing for some users for about two months now, and no one has really said anything until now.

I'm not crazy! (2, Funny)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005157)

Thank you for mentioning this. I thought Google was going nuts, but I never saw it again, so I thought I was going nuts.

At least if I'm going nuts, it's going to manifest itself in some other, more interesting (or at least entertaining) way.

Re:To be honest... (5, Funny)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005153)

You forgot the part where it integrates people centered applications on a collaborative platform with total quality management propagated across the enterprise while simultaneously increasing productivity, lowering costs, and solving world hunger seamlessly.

Re:To be honest... (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005477)

WHAT ! No SYNERGIES ? I demand synergies ! They will shape the future paradigms of B2C and B2B interaction ! Dang. Forgot my pills again.

Re:To be honest... (1)

shystershep (643874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005189)

Well, I've been getting my Google results in this form for about 2 weeks now (when signed in).

I did in fact notice it -- it shifts the search results up and to the right slightly -- but other than being slightly annoyed that my unchanging Google had changed, didn't think much of it. I'm not quite sure how this is the big deal that it is being made out to be. It gives a bit more room for Google to link related services, but otherwise . . . meh.

Re:To be honest... (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005288)

I doubt it'll ever go live.

Remember the google viewer [google.com] ? that was exceptionally cool, but has now dissappeared, google suggest was even cooler, but still hasn't made it to the homepage.

It would be nice if google supported these projects instead of just saying "oh hey, we did this cool thing too, but don't get too attached, we're going to pull the feature in a few months without any warning. It's called free market research, chumps"...

ah well.

Re:To be honest... (1)

Eric Giguere (42863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005094)

I think they're really trying to free up more vertical space for search results. Why? Because the search results have been getting crowded out by other things at the top (not just sponsored links, but links to local searches, maps, etc.) and bottom of the screen. Moving the categories to the side, making the Google logo smaller (it's now 135 by 50 instead of 150 by 55) and reducing the amount of whitespace at the margins all let them squeeze more into the vertical space.

They may also be able to play with showing ads in the left column, which is an ad hotspot [google.com] , though I don't know if they'll go that far.

Eric
Contextual advertising blog [memwg.com]

Re:To be honest... (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005448)

I think its ugly, they need some padding on the body element....

Still no web standards... (3, Interesting)

StandardsSchmandards (828326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005141)

I wonder when Google will change their HTML to be compliant with the W3C recommendations? It is amazing that they are so far behind other companies with regard to markup quality.

Re:Still no web standards... (2, Interesting)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005458)

IIRC they do this to save bandwidth, all those "'s add up.

Re:To be honest... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005147)

Just when Oracle Secure Enterprise Search [oracle.com] had the Google "look and feel" copied...

Demo of the Oracle SES here. [oracle.com]

Re:To be honest... (1)

ubermiester (883599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005371)

One thing to notice is that there are *NO ADS*! So for at least a few weeks, (one would assume that if google leaked the cookie code that unlocks the beta version, it is not far from being implemented), you can view all your search results sans advertisements.

Same day as CNN goes vertical -> horizontal. (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005537)

Well I think I'd notice. CNN's website just went from their vertical section interface to a horizontal one, and I noticed it immediately. Strange that they would do this just while google dabbles with the opposite. Coincidence?

old news (5, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004860)

Ummm, they've been experimenting with this for about two months now. I get a results page in this layout about once a week or so.

Old news++ (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005007)

Yup, I've seen it many times, too. No Digg.

not much (2, Interesting)

carsonc (792247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004863)

it's good in that you know if it's worth looking at the other categories without clicking on anything.

Re:not much (0, Offtopic)

carsonc (792247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004887)

I also like the definition of the seach term in the corner

Re:not much (1)

AnonymousJackass (849899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005392)

Yeah, except is doesn't seem to work. I Google for my name (an uncommon name) -- the little bar charts indicate that most hits are under "web" (that's correct), followed by "news", "froogle" and "groups". BUT... when I go to "news", "froogle" or "groups" I get "Your search - "{my name}" - did not match any documents." I never have any Google hits under those subsections, so why the misleading bars?
I assume this is why this search page only available if you 'cheat'.

Next on the slashdot front page: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15004865)

Google employee takes a dump!

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005383)

Yeah. Holy s***. It's amazing what will warrant coverage on this site.

Is it a necessary evil? (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004873)

Slipping some away from the much loved and extolled absolute minimist page design to fit some mroe functionality in? I do agree though, definitely the first step to global domination.

I, for one... (3, Funny)

SisyphusShrugged (728028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004877)

I, for one, welcome our new column re-arranging overlords.

Re:I, for one... (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005087)

Soooo... Google is the new Tetris?

Choices, choices (2, Funny)

Roadkills-R-Us (122219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005186)

I finally arrived at the same conclusion, but untila fter hours of soul searching.

Google or Taliban?
Google or Taliban?
Google or Taliban?

But once I realized the Taliban would shoot me rather than consider moving the tabs, the choice became easy.

This just shows my case... (1)

hadj (926126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005216)

Pure the fact /. is reporting a possible GUI change of Google's search engine shows a) Google with this much attention will become head of Bubble "2.0" and b) /. will, if they not change course, share responsibility.

News for Nerds... (0, Offtopic)

fred911 (83970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004879)

Stuff 'bout Google.

Re:News for Nerds... (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004913)

[News for Nerds] Stuff 'bout Google.

You could go to digg and find out what Steve Jobs had for breakfast.

Re:News for Nerds... (5, Funny)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004947)

You could go to digg and find out what Steve Jobs had for breakfast.

I bet it was really cool and trendy, and worked way better than what Bill Gates had for breakfast.

Re:News for Nerds... (1)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005225)

In fact, it was so good and trendy that Jobs filed for a patent on it.

I'll bet it was off-white (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005245)

I'll bet it was off-white. Or maybe transparent and chrome.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15004880)

Seriously, what is the point of this? I'm not trolling, it's just that when I search, I know if I want to look at images, groups, froogle et al. The layout just doesn't seem right to me. Hopefully, they'll make it an option whether to view results like this.

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

triptolemus (956825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004888)

Larry Page just farted and nearly crapped his pants. Slashdot article and detailed coverage coming soon.

Re:In other news... (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004990)

phew thanks. so, do you suggest I sell my Google stock? :)

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005230)

This is google's new plan? Taking away the Ads?

That'll make the S&P folks happy :)

Er, wow. (1)

LiftOp (637065) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004892)

Why does this remind me of discussions I've witnessed about whether Greedo shoots first?

Re:Er, wow. (4, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004975)

Indeed, that's not worth discussing. Han DID shoot first, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot (including George Lucas).

Re:Er, wow. (1)

VisiX (765225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005013)

Seconded!

Changing main points of character development when you "remaster" a movie is completely ridiculous.

Maybe they can change it next so that darth vader moonlights as a tap dancer

Re:Er, wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005052)

"Han shoots first" implies to me that Greedo shoots second. That doesn't work for me either.

Re:Er, wow. (0, Redundant)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005133)

Very well. Solely Solo shot.

Re:Er, wow. (1, Redundant)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005540)

I was watching an older VHS version, and in that one, Greedo didn't shoot at all.... Or maybe I blinked and missed it. From the First non-enhanced VHS box set.

How does one go about "discovering" this code? (3, Interesting)

keilinw (663210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004893)

Very interesting... and somewhat disappointing. I was expecting to see a completely new interface, not the addition of a bar on the left side of the screen. Don't get me wrong, this is useful and a bit attractive.

However, what I'd really be interested in is whether or not someone outside of Google could have come up with this code themselves? Or, is it an inside job? Or perhaps it is an "unofficial" preview release.

What is the /. communities response to this....I'm dying to know!

Matthew Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com [themindofmatthew.com]

Re:How does one go about "discovering" this code? (5, Informative)

isometrick (817436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005303)

Google beta tests new features on a subset of its regular users, who are identified by cookies. So someone released their cookie which you set with javascript, and voila: the features show up for you.

Re:How does one go about "discovering" this code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005304)

Google is always testing new designs; they just make sure a really small percentage of users see it, and then Google judges how good/bad the design is.

Someone probably saw this new design, and decided to snoop around, and found the cookie.

Google's Plans? (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004901)

"I thought we already knew those: world domination."

I thought their goal was to spend all day smoking pot, eating Chips Ahoy, and watching Caliente or Martha. Oh wait, that used to be mine. From what I remember, college was a good thing.

Re:Google's Plans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005489)

Oh my gosh, you have just described what I do most days. Watching Martha stoned is the best thing ever, except you tend to get REALLY REALLY hungry when she cooks. I heart grad school.

Changing it back. (2, Informative)

soulctcher (581951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004917)

For those who made the change and want the old way back, it's as simple as clearing the google.com PREF cookie in your browser. If you don't know how to clear a single cookie, then clear all of them and it will be included.

Google cluttered (1)

mcguyver (589810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004923)

Anyone else agree the new interface is cluttered? The left side of your screen draws attention away from the organic and paid results.

Delete the cookie name PREF if you want to go back to the old interface.

Re:Google cluttered (1)

kcurtis (311610) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005093)

Personally I like this change. Specifically, the ability to see if I've gotten hits in newsgroups, which can often be more helpful than the official company answers that google web search finds. Many newer monitors have a wider aspect, so it isn't really taking room away from my results.

not new (maybe slashdot new; but not new) (3, Insightful)

amazon10x (737466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004932)

Uh... this isn't that new. Google has been showing up like this on my mom's laptop (widescreen so it's a big benefit) for about 3 or 4 months now.

I guess google must've detected that it was widescreen and changed the layout so that it i smore efficient in using the viewing window when fullscreened.

Re:not new (maybe slashdot new; but not new) (2, Informative)

isometrick (817436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005342)

Not everyone gets these features (so it is news to most), and your mom didn't get the new features because of a wide screen.

See my other comment [slashdot.org] for an explanation.

Customized Tabs (1)

psiph (864395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004933)

Because this interface leaves a lot of extra room in the left pane, it's probably a precursor to customized search categories (e.g. the ability to add a blog search, video search, financial search, scholar search).

Wow (5, Funny)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004941)

Thanks /. it was amazing to see some of the text move left. Don't forget to keep us posted about other exciting changes such as Google's got a new coke machine or whatever. Us hackers get off on that, it's in our blood.

" I'll take a stab at what that purpose is" (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004949)

In the article the assumption is, it's to get you to look at googles 'other parts'

I say it's to accomodate wide aspect monitors better.

Will this hack run on Booble? (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005049)

Will this hack run on Booble? Y'know, so we can get to see Booble's 'other parts'?

Just for once... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004960)

Wouldn't it have been much cooler if the new Google was coloured text on a black background? [jeffs-icons.com]

Re:Just for once... (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005023)

are you on a mac? because it looks like you inverted screen colors by pressing ctrl-alt-apple-8

Re:Just for once... (1)

rmiller021 (620732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005066)

Grease monkey can do stuff like this.
And no it can't be inverted becuase the picture on the page has the correct colors.

World Domination! (2, Funny)

Lord Gimli (946569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004963)

This proves that the real brains behind Google is The Brain

Pinky's job is to come up with mispellings of words so you get somewhat meaningful "Did You Mean:" suggestions!

Re:World Domination! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005041)

That explains why the "I'm feeling lucky!" button now reads "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

green bars? (1, Funny)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004968)

Whats with the green bars? I first thought Google was showing the DHS terror threat color code, which is now green, meaning SAFE?

/sarcasm

I don't digg this (1)

HooliganIntellectual (856868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004979)

Really, Slashdot, are you pandering after the Digg crowd with trivia like this? Slashdot set the standard for technology news so please give us news content with some substance. Then we can have some intelligent discussions instead of this one about how trivial this story is.

Ars article is partly wrong... (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15004983)

"First, the relocation allows for the actual search results to start higher up on the page. This is good because it means that users can expect to see more per "window.""

This isn't really true. Although the results start a bit higher up on the page, there is now a huge chunk of empty space on the left side. So, no, you are not getting "more [results] per window".

Google Pre-Hacks? (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005033)

Are these Google Pre-Hacks -- hacks for things that aren't released yet? What do you call those things?

muhahahah (0, Offtopic)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005036)

resistance is futile

you will be assimilated

its terrible usability wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005054)


now my mouse has twice as far to travel,
try putting on the right of the display nearest the scrollbar, that way i can move between options and the scrollbar with the minimum of mouse travel (=quicker)

iam not disabled and it sucks, iam sure this would make it worse for disabled users due to the increased movement distance

its as bad as Apple putting their window controls on the opposite side of the scrollbars, imho a terrible UI decision

AJ

FIRST pOST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005057)

Meh (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005071)

I like the 'new' layout, but it'd be nice if it was present on the images, groups, etc pages, to have the navigation skip around all over the place is very annoying.

also, they could fit more on the sidebar; like including book search, and, well pretty much everything at http://www.google.com/options/ [google.com]

An ajax interface would actually kick ass here; click 'images' and it loads the image results right into the results frame.

Also, can anyone tell me what the green bars to the right of each search mean? I would have guessed it was the number of results, but a search for "microsoft" yeilds nearly 3Bn web results, and only 60k news ones, but the news bar is more full than the web results.
If it's relevancy, then how on earth are they judging that 60 thousand news hits are more relevant than 3 billion websites?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005312)

Using Google's patented PigeonRank(TM) [google.com]

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005323)

After doing some test searches, I believe the green bars are indeed the number of items returned in that category.

It's simple really, if you search for something like say, "bill gates" you see the largest proportion of items in the news category followed closely by web and images. This is expected since he's a CEO of some big company that is also attempting world domination so of course there would be lots of news items on him. Now say you search for something like "sony psp" and suddenly the froogle bar shoots up.

What a lot of people also ignore is the fact that a lot of information isn't just on the web in webpage format. So if you search for something like "windows exception" you notice that the groups results shoot up. That's because the groups results tend to offer a lot of troubleshooting type information since people tend to ask questions about problems they're having. But of course, nobody is going to always capture these problems and sometimes they are specific to a set of hardware/software. For example one day I had a bug with a particular set of software configured on one of our older servers. Searching the web was hopeless because the terms were too vague and always generated results from other related but not what I was looking for. However, after switching the search to groups I was able to find people asking the same exact question and eventually some answers.

I don't think a lot of people are utilizing some of these tools to their advantage and it looks like this might give some hints to the user that what you're looking for might be somewhere else but ignore that. Let's all start complaining about how it looks ugly--clearly that's much more important!

oh joy, another article about Google (0, Redundant)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005083)

Can we get a Google section, please? That way, I can turn it off and not see any more ramblings about a company that is waaaay too hyped for my taste. Thanks much.

Stop the Presses! (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005110)

Oh my god, Google did something! This means we just have to make a report on the front page.

World domination? (1)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005123)

Poit! Narf! What're we gonna do tonight, Brin?

-F

Meh. It's ok, but . . . . (2, Insightful)

dep01 (730107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005143)

When you click on, say, "Images" on the left of the search results, you see the images, but then the sidebar is gone.... You should be able to click on Images, then Groups, then back to Web without it taking away your sidebar. It breaks the paradigm. But perhaps that's due for this being a beta thing.

Odd... (1)

SmartSsa (19152) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005181)

my google has looked like that for a month or so and I have no idea what I did to get it there.

Apparently, I'm special.

But not special enough to have google talk available on my gmail account.

Silly google. :\

doesn't Yahoo already do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005205)

This isn't something new or revolutionary. Yahoo already does this.

Simple changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005277)

They're designed to get people to search google's other databases. Right now, if you use google search engines, you can click on those links above and get results relaetd to the search you just did. Adding relevance indicators makes this more obvious, but it simply wouldn't work horizonatally. Even if it did, as google adds more types of search it would eventually be infeasible. Strangely, the search categories aren't ordered by relevance to the current term.

Searching journal articles and the WWW for text makes some degree of sense, but searching for images via text is less useful, and video even less so. TheESPGame [espgame.org] is an interesting site where you tried to guess how another person describes a picture. A picture might be worth a thousand words, but only perhaps five of them would be commonly used between people. Fortunately, we know what they are, so that game is winnable. This is what makes Google's ability to extract relevant words reguarding pictures on the web tenable, but these days I'm more interested in ways to improve search in ways Google isn't doing anymore.

I've seen a site that lets you draw images and it returns pictures that closely match. It was real neat, but not the sort of thing you can just leave on a single server on the internet; it got nailed by sites like slashdot. Donno if it's a performance problem or just scaling problems, but I'd like to see it come back some day.

Similarly, it'd be neat to have audio search based on audio samples. The music genome is interesting, but it represents a huge investment of the ESP game sort. They describe various attributes of music and their Pandora tool lets me ask for music similar to that. I'd imagine it'd be far more entertaining if people could hum or sing a few lines into a mic and the computer searches for likely candidates, like a Seinfeld episode or something.

Unlimited cookies in google code (3, Funny)

saboola (655522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005322)

up up down down left right left right B A Try it. It works.

Google has the AIRLINE business model (0, Offtopic)

mOOzilla (962027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005398)

They overbook, they rely on the fact NOBODY will use up ALL their storage, if everybody does there would not be enough to go around. AN anology is airline seat over-bookings. We all know what happens then.

Let me be the xth to say... (1)

masterzora (871343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005416)

Oh no! It's just part of a scheme to steal all your information!

But seriously, it's not really a bad change, but I prefer it the old way. Of course, it's not really that big of a change to worry about either way.

Also Turns on Personalized Search (1)

uab21 (951482) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005431)

I tried this, and rather liked it - I saw a relevance bar on the "Groups" section for my test search (Riemann zeta function - from earlier /. story) and found some useful information that I would have otherwise neglected. So it's helpful.

but it *did* turn on Personalized Search (Beta), and gave me a link to turn it off in the same column, but be warned.

(BTW the "News" selection linked the /. story only, missing the Ars Technica bit entirely)

Google (1)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005445)

Have I been one of the unfortunate ones that haven't had the pleasure of seeing this new format? Looks interesting.

IG (1)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005502)

Something weird for me, every 50 searches or so, it goes straight to google.com/ig (the portal) when I hit google.com. Strange stuff.

wrong celestial object (2, Funny)

mennucc1 (568756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005513)

world domination? I think Google is more into moon domination [google.com]
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>