Google's Inevitable Ruin Begins(pcmag.com)
pcmag.com
Google's Inevitable Ruin Begins
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372489,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03079TX1K0000584&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ziffdavis%2Fpcmag%2Fdvorak+%28PCMag.com%3A+the+Official+John+C.+Dvorak+RSS+Feed%29
71 comments
JD;DR. See also:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp
Has Dvorak ever been right about anything? (And no, he doesn't get credit for the keyboard layout, that was a different guy.)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp
Has Dvorak ever been right about anything? (And no, he doesn't get credit for the keyboard layout, that was a different guy.)
Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp
(Technically, he was short by 9 months, but Apple did the inconceivable, eventually.)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp
(Technically, he was short by 9 months, but Apple did the inconceivable, eventually.)
I think this is an instance of the broken clock rule. People had been throwing this rumor around for years. That he repeated it at some point before it actually happened (but got the timing wrong even with a big window) is unremarkable.
For example, the rumor is mentioned (though rightly dismissed as impractical at the time) in this eWeek article from 2002: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-wit...
For example, the rumor is mentioned (though rightly dismissed as impractical at the time) in this eWeek article from 2002: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-wit...
Also, I just double-checked the dates. Apple switched to Intel in January 2006, which is 16 months past the end of his 18-month window, not nine.
He predicted that Apple would switch to Itanium processors, they didn't, not even a little bit. This is as wrong as if he had predicted Apple would switch to ARM.
The fact that Apple would have to switch off of the Power architecture for its systems was pretty obvious at the time. The idea that they would switch to Intel processors was not guaranteed but pretty obvious (I predicted it), given Intel/AMD's production volumes and performance characteristics. The idea that they would switch to Itanium was based on false premises and never came to pass.
The fact that Apple would have to switch off of the Power architecture for its systems was pretty obvious at the time. The idea that they would switch to Intel processors was not guaranteed but pretty obvious (I predicted it), given Intel/AMD's production volumes and performance characteristics. The idea that they would switch to Itanium was based on false premises and never came to pass.
In a list of great predictions of our time, "There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in [the mobile phone] business" has to be right up there.
I don't know if it will bring on ruin, but I certainly found the old image search much more friendly and usable. Both this and page preview seems like "another useless feature that someone thinks improves the experience when it does nothing but show off the fact that someone can code JavaScript or some other display manipulation language." Clean and fast wins the day with me ... Duck Duck Go?
this. the "improved" image search is terrible. very finicky and even hard to use--hardly simple.
re: ddg. regular user, but as others have pointed out already the ajax load for results is annoying (because it's slow and flashy/jerky).
re: ddg. regular user, but as others have pointed out already the ajax load for results is annoying (because it's slow and flashy/jerky).
Note we now have html (non-js) & lite versions at http://duckduckgo.com/html & http://duckduckgo.com/lite
excellent, just appended '/html' to the default browser search engine url.
would be great if instead of having to use specific urls that this could be set up as a preference in settings. still, i'm a happy camper :)
would be great if instead of having to use specific urls that this could be set up as a preference in settings. still, i'm a happy camper :)
If you hit the front page without JS enabled it will automatically submit to the html version. And similarly, if you hit it with a textmode browser it will automatically go to the lite version.
I like the new one for the most part. Sometimes I would prefer the sizes to be listed under the image, but having the page full of images with minimal whitespace is nice; less clicking to see the results.
John Dvorak seems to have an unlimited supply of complaints, and rarely anything constructive to say.
Wikipedia suggests he's never built anything of his own. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Perhaps that's part of it?
Wikipedia suggests he's never built anything of his own. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Perhaps that's part of it?
It's possible to be a good tech journalist without having coded something yourself (though that's not to say that Dvorak is a good journalist). Sure, it would probably be an asset, and a lack of technical context can make people write some stupid stuff, but not having built something does not automatically invalidate anyone's opinions.
Most journalists have never worked in their fields, but nobody's complaining about that. The asinine idea that nobody's allowed to have an opinion about any tech company without being a programmer is getting old fast.
Most journalists have never worked in their fields, but nobody's complaining about that. The asinine idea that nobody's allowed to have an opinion about any tech company without being a programmer is getting old fast.
Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But Dvorak seems particularly quick to call tech companies stupid, and I wonder if that's a result of not having been in the trenches himself.
He's pretty much made a career out of making inflammatory statements about companies whose fans get riled up easily. It's not a result of ignorance, it's a result of calculated attempts get hits on his articles (I think he's more-or-less admitted this multiple times). The obvious target has always been Apple, but Google (espcially Android) fanatics have been equally quick to get their backs up lately—maybe he's just diversifying.
He's infamous for making statements that will generate controversy^Wpage views.
Dvorak is not a good tech journalist. His "criticisms" are no better than the ravings of your cranky senile neighbor who hasn't been satisfied with anything in the world since WWI started (indeed, he may be that cranky senile neighbor depending on where you live).
This is the man who invented trolling and link-baiting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg
At best it's satire, not to be taken seriously--if you get up in arms about what he says, he wins and joke's on you.
At best it's satire, not to be taken seriously--if you get up in arms about what he says, he wins and joke's on you.
Flagged. Anything with Dvorak's name should be auto-flagged. If he ever raises an argument that's credible to the HN audience than that means he failed his own quality criteria: that is to write a specious argument designed to appeal to the uninformed reader but that fails any sort of detailed analysis so hard that anyone with half a clue who reads it will be compelled to debunk it and thus angrily drive traffic to the article.
Rather astonishingly, he presents no data whatsoever on whether users (y'know, the ones who matter) actually like instant search and the new image search.
Without that, his argument that Google is in some sort of "decline" because of their introduction can't be taken seriously, and the article is nothing more than a rant about how he dislikes them. This is a fact about John C. Dvorak, not Google.
Without that, his argument that Google is in some sort of "decline" because of their introduction can't be taken seriously, and the article is nothing more than a rant about how he dislikes them. This is a fact about John C. Dvorak, not Google.
I disagree with the author, and think that he hasn't used google image search very extensively.
"Instead of the single page of thumbnails, you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page."
The (near) endless scrolling model works better for rapidly sorting large sets of images, not worse.
"There is no information, just endless thumbnails. No sizes, no locations to scan, nothing! ... Now you have to place the pointer on top of each image for ... size and location information."
If you are optimizing for a an interface for sorting the most images possible, removing text makes sense to me. Also, sorting options for the image size is now on the left, which I find more useful than reading text below each image.
The pop-ups also contain controls which the author ignores that are very handy: similar images, and different sizes of the same image.
"Instead of the single page of thumbnails, you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page."
The (near) endless scrolling model works better for rapidly sorting large sets of images, not worse.
"There is no information, just endless thumbnails. No sizes, no locations to scan, nothing! ... Now you have to place the pointer on top of each image for ... size and location information."
If you are optimizing for a an interface for sorting the most images possible, removing text makes sense to me. Also, sorting options for the image size is now on the left, which I find more useful than reading text below each image.
The pop-ups also contain controls which the author ignores that are very handy: similar images, and different sizes of the same image.
Yeah, a bit shock-jockish, which is funny considering the pcmag source. I forgot they even existed. Oh, probably because they dropped in relevance like a friggin rock.
Putting 'Dvorak' in the title would have saved me some time.
I'd upvote you twice if I could. I actually audibly groaned when I saw who the author was. Didn't even read the article, I knew it was going to be full of crap. I can't believe I graced him with a pageview. Ugh.
Sorry, I see a lot of people don't care for Dvorak, I probably should have put his name in the title. I do think he occasionally has something interesting to say. Simple, clean, fast is why I've used Google and I think that is primarily what has made them a success. If they complicate their applications, will that be a detriment to their business? That's an important question.
I was going to leave a snarky comment but yours saved me some time.
Knowing nothing about the man. I only got through the first paragraph before I realized the man has no idea what he's talking about. I am not likely to listen to anything he says says ever again.
Edit: grammar;
Edit: grammar;
Agree with the many other people commenting here that the article was full of nonsense. And the idea that these changes spell "Google's inevitable ruin" is pretty hilarious.
That said, I do hate the changes. I found the old image search far nicer to use. The most important negative change is that when looking for an image, I like to open up multiple options in new tabs, sort of making a shortlist from which to chose from later. To do this I, while scanning the images, click on ones of interest with my middle mouse button. With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly.
I also dislike the live results stuff, I'm not sure if there's any specific reason or just because I'm used to the traditional method - I haven't actually used it nearly enough to know if I'd get used to it, given the chance. I use https://encrypted.google.com, which hasn't rolled out that feature, thankfully. (Possibly my issue is this: I'm a very fast typer, so I can complete my exact search query without it taking noticeably longer than completing half of my query, and it's therefore more efficient to wait until I get the most accurate results, rather than hoping that a less accurate search will have found what I'm looking for.)
That said, I do hate the changes. I found the old image search far nicer to use. The most important negative change is that when looking for an image, I like to open up multiple options in new tabs, sort of making a shortlist from which to chose from later. To do this I, while scanning the images, click on ones of interest with my middle mouse button. With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly.
I also dislike the live results stuff, I'm not sure if there's any specific reason or just because I'm used to the traditional method - I haven't actually used it nearly enough to know if I'd get used to it, given the chance. I use https://encrypted.google.com, which hasn't rolled out that feature, thankfully. (Possibly my issue is this: I'm a very fast typer, so I can complete my exact search query without it taking noticeably longer than completing half of my query, and it's therefore more efficient to wait until I get the most accurate results, rather than hoping that a less accurate search will have found what I'm looking for.)
>With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly.
That is patently untrue.
[source: I just tried. I middle-clicked as many links as I could as fast as I could. Each one resulted in a new tab instantly]
That is patently untrue.
[source: I just tried. I middle-clicked as many links as I could as fast as I could. Each one resulted in a new tab instantly]
I just tried in Chrome and it's as you said. In Firefox, however, it's a different story (and FF is my primary browser.)
Oooh. I see.
Some valid usability criticisms, swamped in less useful ones and linkbaity headers. I actually agree that some of the new features are a little too bandwidth hungry, but am OK with that because I want to see greater demand for last mile broadband on the west coast. Reading about the speeds available on FIOS makes me cry.
I'm surprised he didn't take a few stabs at Google News, which really does have fundamental problems. He has touched on them [1] but the criticisms are rather shallow and miss the mark.
1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp.
I don't like seeing Dvorak called a troll. Disclosure: I wrote for PC Mag in London for a while, so there's a bit of collegiality at work, but I've always seen him as a gadfly - a literary nickname for the horsefly, an annoying creature that buzzes and has a painful bite, but which perform useful functions of pollination, providing forensic evidence, and contribute to the weeding out evolutionary misfits. Trolls (by my definition) deliberately seek to mislead or irritate others for amusement's sake - occasionally everyone's, but usually only their own. Dvorak honestly thinks the things he complains about are broken, even if he's often wrong about how, why or what extent. He is the Ur-User :-)
I'm surprised he didn't take a few stabs at Google News, which really does have fundamental problems. He has touched on them [1] but the criticisms are rather shallow and miss the mark.
1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp.
I don't like seeing Dvorak called a troll. Disclosure: I wrote for PC Mag in London for a while, so there's a bit of collegiality at work, but I've always seen him as a gadfly - a literary nickname for the horsefly, an annoying creature that buzzes and has a painful bite, but which perform useful functions of pollination, providing forensic evidence, and contribute to the weeding out evolutionary misfits. Trolls (by my definition) deliberately seek to mislead or irritate others for amusement's sake - occasionally everyone's, but usually only their own. Dvorak honestly thinks the things he complains about are broken, even if he's often wrong about how, why or what extent. He is the Ur-User :-)
Yes! I agree completely with this. I was just trying to do an image search on google earlier today and it drove me nuts having to hover over each image to see the size and then get shunted off to some weird ajax light box display after finally picking one.
It was bad enough that I abandoned the google search and went to baidu, which was actually the more minimalist option for once.
It was bad enough that I abandoned the google search and went to baidu, which was actually the more minimalist option for once.
I'm not going to actually go check, but I'm pretty sure the images still load one page at a time, when you scroll to the bottom of the last page (or farther). How can you have a job at PCMag and not acknowledge or even be aware of this?
[deleted]
I've been impressed by both the new image search and the web previews. With the introduction of Rock Melt, the instant page preview while simultaneously browsing my searches was a productive environment and now Google added it to their page.
The image search I feel is even faster now that I don't have to click through every single page. Before I used Cool Iris. The whole point of image search is supposed to be a visual experience. If you liked an image, check its size. Also, why is his browser crashing? What's he using?
The image search I feel is even faster now that I don't have to click through every single page. Before I used Cool Iris. The whole point of image search is supposed to be a visual experience. If you liked an image, check its size. Also, why is his browser crashing? What's he using?
Hahaha, just a few days ago this article hit http://www.fastcompany.com/1701119/adwords-is-dying-and-goog...
which is a LOT better look into what Google is doing and why. The sky is not falling Dvorak, never has been, never will be.
which is a LOT better look into what Google is doing and why. The sky is not falling Dvorak, never has been, never will be.
Technology people may not like Google's recent work (me included), but two things must be kept in mind:
1. techies are the minority
2. Google is said to split test heavily, maybe even pathologically
So if a new feature stays it's probably because non-technical people liked it and Google is probably doing the right thing from a business perspective.
1. techies are the minority
2. Google is said to split test heavily, maybe even pathologically
So if a new feature stays it's probably because non-technical people liked it and Google is probably doing the right thing from a business perspective.
I like some of Google's recent changes, but I must agree that the new Google image search is a mess. I much prefer the old one.
I don't really understand people's complaints on this issue. How could you not prefer to have hundreds of images on one page instead of clicking for the next page over and over? It's the difference between a mousewheel scroll and click/scroll, click/scroll.
My complaints are mostly around the Javascript mess that has stolen our direct access to the images.
The image I want is usually in the top row of results anyway, so an endless collection of thumbnails isn't much help.
I don't want to view an image in some kind of weird half-sized shadow box. I want to see it alone, at full size -- or directly download it. In the old Google image search, these tasks were as easy as a right click on a context menu.
Now we get strange hover boxes that are only 50% larger than the thumbnails, and clicking a thumbnail takes you to a confusing pseudo-page that isn't the full size image, nor the actual source site. Who does this help?
The image I want is usually in the top row of results anyway, so an endless collection of thumbnails isn't much help.
I don't want to view an image in some kind of weird half-sized shadow box. I want to see it alone, at full size -- or directly download it. In the old Google image search, these tasks were as easy as a right click on a context menu.
Now we get strange hover boxes that are only 50% larger than the thumbnails, and clicking a thumbnail takes you to a confusing pseudo-page that isn't the full size image, nor the actual source site. Who does this help?
OMG something changed, the end is nigh.
Apple is dead! Long live Windows!
BSD is dying! NetCraft confirms it!
... and now:
Google is dying! John C Dvorak^W^W^WAn internet troll confirms it!
... and now:
Google is dying! John C Dvorak^W^W^WAn internet troll confirms it!
Just when I was going to sell my Google stock, Dvorak goes and pays it his highest complement. Guess I'll wait a few more months...
You know a writer does not have a convincing case when he adds "trust me" to the first paragraph.
I think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.
dvorak is a troll
Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
"you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time."
Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool.
In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll.
If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily.
As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up.
"So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information."
Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this).
But say you really want to see images from usgs.gov? site:usgs.gov, e.g. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+...;
And of course you can search by size (larger than, or a specific absolute size), and so on.
There will always (always) be people who complain about change. John, in this case, is just plying his trollish trade, however.
"you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time."
Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool.
In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll.
If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily.
As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up.
"So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information."
Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this).
But say you really want to see images from usgs.gov? site:usgs.gov, e.g. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+...;
And of course you can search by size (larger than, or a specific absolute size), and so on.
There will always (always) be people who complain about change. John, in this case, is just plying his trollish trade, however.
Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
Stopping right here to reminisce for a minute.
When I was a kid, my parents bought me a subscription to MacUser magazine, because I was glued to our old 512. I would read the issues cover to cover. (I have particularly vivid memories of the April 1987 issue, which unveiled the Mac SE, the original Mac II, and the release of Dark Castle.)
Dvorak had a column on the last page of the magazine. It was basically an Andy Rooney routine -- he was a grump who liked to complain about messed-up technology. One of the first of his columns I read (some time in 1986) was a rant about his experiences trying to play ICOM's "Deja Vu", a fairly innovative adventure game with a noir theme.
Dvorak claimed to be unable to master the interface (point-and-click!), and described in great detail his attempts to fumble through the first few rooms. I was 9, and I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever read that involved a computer.
At some point he stopped writing the column, and I lost track of him until I was out of college and suddenly he was a notable tech pundit. That has always seemed strange to me.
Stopping right here to reminisce for a minute.
When I was a kid, my parents bought me a subscription to MacUser magazine, because I was glued to our old 512. I would read the issues cover to cover. (I have particularly vivid memories of the April 1987 issue, which unveiled the Mac SE, the original Mac II, and the release of Dark Castle.)
Dvorak had a column on the last page of the magazine. It was basically an Andy Rooney routine -- he was a grump who liked to complain about messed-up technology. One of the first of his columns I read (some time in 1986) was a rant about his experiences trying to play ICOM's "Deja Vu", a fairly innovative adventure game with a noir theme.
Dvorak claimed to be unable to master the interface (point-and-click!), and described in great detail his attempts to fumble through the first few rooms. I was 9, and I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever read that involved a computer.
At some point he stopped writing the column, and I lost track of him until I was out of college and suddenly he was a notable tech pundit. That has always seemed strange to me.
> At some point he stopped writing the column
Wasn't he around til the bitter end of MacUser when they folded or merged with MacWorld or whatever?
Wasn't he around til the bitter end of MacUser when they folded or merged with MacWorld or whatever?
Maybe? I'm not sure. I remember Andy Inhatko having the back page for a while, and some other people as well, but I don't remember where those things fall in the timeline w.r.t the merge with MacWorld.
Also, wrt to Dark Castle, were you aware that Return to Dark Castle was released for OS X a couple years ago, runs great on 10.6, includes both original games plus a ton of new levels that full capture the spirit of the originals?
http://www.superhappyfunfun.com/games/gam_returntodc.html
http://www.superhappyfunfun.com/games/gam_returntodc.html
I was! But unfortunately I have not had a Mac since 2000 or so. I should really commandeer my brother's laptop next time he's in town. Maybe over the holidays.
I got modded into a smouldering crater for pointing out that another article was a massive troll.[1] I think I was modded down for the fact that I enjoyed it: despite the fact I was highlighting it was a troll and that people shouldn't take it seriously. Almost everything in tech journalism these days consists of hyperbole or trolling to get maximum hits or, failing that, thinly reworded press releases and superficial reviews to minimize the actual effort required to publish. There are a few exceptions - namely things like the really in-depth SSD reviews conducted by Anandtech which actually had well constructed benchmarks, told you something new and really valuable and actually went and did interviews with major players - but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Bonus points: video of Dvorak admitting he trolls Apple users in his columns.[2]
[1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877219
[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQv0j29WHA
Bonus points: video of Dvorak admitting he trolls Apple users in his columns.[2]
[1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877219
[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQv0j29WHA
Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong.
I also agree with him that it's a bad sign when a company seems to be doing things just because their competitors did something similar.
I also agree with him that it's a bad sign when a company seems to be doing things just because their competitors did something similar.
> The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong.
It may be worse for you, but it is better for almost everyone else. Dvorak is getting two things confused here: first, he assumes that because of his special uses cases that aren't supported as well, GIS is overall worse now. Second, he assumes that because a certain Google property is worse, the entire company is headed for doom.
It may be worse for you, but it is better for almost everyone else. Dvorak is getting two things confused here: first, he assumes that because of his special uses cases that aren't supported as well, GIS is overall worse now. Second, he assumes that because a certain Google property is worse, the entire company is headed for doom.
The old version, when you clicked an image it would take you to the page that contained the image and give you some controls at the top like 'view full size'. The page it took you to was fully functional. Now, when you click on the image it takes you to the containing page but it puts the image in an overlay on top of the page blocking the actual page. You can't see the page unless you close the overlay which takes you out of google image search altogether.
I don't think this is better for most people, and it certainly isn't better for me.
The scrolling instead of paging is a u no no in my book. For example I can look at 8 pages of images then quickly jump back to page 2 if I want to. I can't send a link to page 8, or bookmark it, and it breaks other u expectations. Maybe that's ok, but I don't see what gain overcomes those negatives.
I don't think this is better for most people, and it certainly isn't better for me.
The scrolling instead of paging is a u no no in my book. For example I can look at 8 pages of images then quickly jump back to page 2 if I want to. I can't send a link to page 8, or bookmark it, and it breaks other u expectations. Maybe that's ok, but I don't see what gain overcomes those negatives.
You're forgetting a few properties of the new landing page. The image is at its full size, or at least at a much larger size, which is what most people want to see when they arrive at a landing page. In the old version, only a tiny thumbnail was visible. Many pages also don't have the image visible at the top, so this makes it so the image is always visible. So there are a few things that at least argue in favor of the new version.
Scrolling versus paging is a personal preference thing. I don't know the rationale behind that, but I know that some people prefer the smoothness of a scroll over the pages.
Scrolling versus paging is a personal preference thing. I don't know the rationale behind that, but I know that some people prefer the smoothness of a scroll over the pages.
Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point
Splitting hairs?
These are the specific things that he complains about being wrong with the new version, and they're ignorant bullshit.
The new google image search is worse than the old one imo
I think the new image search is vastly improved. I doubt I'm alone. For the purpose of finding images it is much more efficient and usable, and if you want advanced searching, it's still there for your advanced searching needs.
But of course, we're just two people with subjective feelings. If Google changed it back, however, I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs.
It is human nature that whenever something changes the complainers tend to be the loudest. The fact that you don't personally like it, and Dvorak affirms your opinion, says absolutely nothing to whether it was a good move for Google or the average user.
Though I have no doubt that everyone with a gripe with Google's image search changes will we drawn into this discussion to add their "Rah rah yah yah!" I hope we're all wise enough to know how to judge that and to not overestimate the scope of that group.
It's also suspect to argue that they did it "just because their competitors are doing it". Could it be that the state of the art on the tubes is improving? Did Apple add multitasking to the iPhone just because Android did it, or because it's actually a good feature to have?
Splitting hairs?
These are the specific things that he complains about being wrong with the new version, and they're ignorant bullshit.
The new google image search is worse than the old one imo
I think the new image search is vastly improved. I doubt I'm alone. For the purpose of finding images it is much more efficient and usable, and if you want advanced searching, it's still there for your advanced searching needs.
But of course, we're just two people with subjective feelings. If Google changed it back, however, I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs.
It is human nature that whenever something changes the complainers tend to be the loudest. The fact that you don't personally like it, and Dvorak affirms your opinion, says absolutely nothing to whether it was a good move for Google or the average user.
Though I have no doubt that everyone with a gripe with Google's image search changes will we drawn into this discussion to add their "Rah rah yah yah!" I hope we're all wise enough to know how to judge that and to not overestimate the scope of that group.
It's also suspect to argue that they did it "just because their competitors are doing it". Could it be that the state of the art on the tubes is improving? Did Apple add multitasking to the iPhone just because Android did it, or because it's actually a good feature to have?
I wouldn't first argue that Dvorak spits out 'ignorant bullshit' while claiming that all design preferences are equally valid.
I personally prefer the older Google Images. For one, I lose the ability to scroll the website immediately after finding it. I do this, for example, when I'm searching for some algorithm by first finding a diagram that I think is clearer and then going directly to read the explanation, or when searching for a recipe by looking for the image first.
I find the new interface to be slightly cluttered to use (with all the animations and uncomfortable feeling when scrolling), At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity. For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
There sometimes is a superior interface, and discussing the pros and cons of a new interface is very valuable.
I personally prefer the older Google Images. For one, I lose the ability to scroll the website immediately after finding it. I do this, for example, when I'm searching for some algorithm by first finding a diagram that I think is clearer and then going directly to read the explanation, or when searching for a recipe by looking for the image first.
I find the new interface to be slightly cluttered to use (with all the animations and uncomfortable feeling when scrolling), At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity. For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
There sometimes is a superior interface, and discussing the pros and cons of a new interface is very valuable.
I wouldn't first argue that Dvorak spits out 'ignorant bullshit' while claiming that all design preferences are equally valid.
Indeed. So who claimed that all design preferences are equally valid? Oddly you seem to be inferring that I did, but I actually didn't, making your lead-in just some noise in hope of soliciting a bias from readers.
At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity
But can you see that perhaps Google was pursuing simplicity by making their image search all about the images themselves? Further they made perusing large sets of images simpler.
For users who don't care about source pixel sizes or originating domains -- which I suspect is most -- that was just distracting noise on the page. Google simplified the search to a dense, and often beautiful, collection of images, with some powerful functionality on the left.
For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
Everyone complains about changes, good or bad. That is a simple truism of the world. It does not trivialize the usability of the interface, which is why I specifically talked about the usability of the interface -- all Dvorak cares about is what used to be there and now isn't. He doesn't care about the advantages of the new interface, because all he's focused on is the negative change (for him).
It's ignorant bullshit.
Indeed. So who claimed that all design preferences are equally valid? Oddly you seem to be inferring that I did, but I actually didn't, making your lead-in just some noise in hope of soliciting a bias from readers.
At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity
But can you see that perhaps Google was pursuing simplicity by making their image search all about the images themselves? Further they made perusing large sets of images simpler.
For users who don't care about source pixel sizes or originating domains -- which I suspect is most -- that was just distracting noise on the page. Google simplified the search to a dense, and often beautiful, collection of images, with some powerful functionality on the left.
For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
Everyone complains about changes, good or bad. That is a simple truism of the world. It does not trivialize the usability of the interface, which is why I specifically talked about the usability of the interface -- all Dvorak cares about is what used to be there and now isn't. He doesn't care about the advantages of the new interface, because all he's focused on is the negative change (for him).
It's ignorant bullshit.
I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs.
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists". It's very doubtful that sort of comment will make anyone feel better or add much to the conversation. I agree with your point about complainers usually being the loudest, though.
That said, the new image search still bites. It's more time consuming than it used to be, at least for how I use it.
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists". It's very doubtful that sort of comment will make anyone feel better or add much to the conversation. I agree with your point about complainers usually being the loudest, though.
That said, the new image search still bites. It's more time consuming than it used to be, at least for how I use it.
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists".
Dvorak was so incensed that someone moved his cheese (to draw from a terrible book) that he wrote an article predicting Google's "inevitable ruin" was beginning. This is the sort of over the top rejection of change that exemplified that childish response.
Dvorak was so incensed that someone moved his cheese (to draw from a terrible book) that he wrote an article predicting Google's "inevitable ruin" was beginning. This is the sort of over the top rejection of change that exemplified that childish response.
>> Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
Dvorak is notorious for having an overly negative outlook on things.
"Why would I want to use a mouse?"
"I don't like the idea of having the power button on the front instead of the back"
"The iPad will never sell 5,000,000 units in less than a year.. that's insane"
I never understood why anyone would take anything Dvorak says seriously. His track record is a joke, his grasp of technology is tenuous at best.
This article is awful. Terrible, terrible awful.
Personally I love the new google images. However I would quickly point out that some of the reasons people have left google is their frustration with the magnitude google relies on "the numbers" I highly doubt that the changes are hurting them, becuase if they were... they wouldn't keep it.
I'm working with clojure at the moment which is new to me, so I find myself doing a lot of rapid-fire Google searches to answer "is there a library for x?" or "how do I do y?" like questions.
Before instant and preview, I'd typically do a search and then open a list of the most promising answers in tab - and then possibly do the same with other variants of the search. Then I'd use keyboard shortcuts to move through the tabs and close the irrelevant ones.
Now, I've found that I can usually refine the search to a single good one using instant, by looking at the immediate feedback of the results being returned, and preview lets me quickly see which of the results are junk and which are actually salient before I even get as far as opening them in a tab.
They've made an operation that I do many times a day considerably faster and more interactive and reduced the cognitive load. This is usability where it matters - bringing information closer to my mind so I can get things done quicker.
Most impressive to me is that these improvements seem make a more significant difference for the long tail of professional work, rather than the more trivial searches for new products or celebrity gossip etc. I'm thankful to see Google choosing this as a priority.
I'm reminded of the famous Steve Jobs story about faster boot times saving lives: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
Google's saving lives too.