6 ms·

Google Instant Is Anything But a Time-Saver

38 points by loboman 16y ago

zbanks 16y ago
I, on the contrary, trust Google here. They're known for their extensive testing. I highly highly doubt that they would make such a major change to their main page without knowing for sure that it would be for the better.
- nolite 16y ago
  Like they tested that crappy new Gmail interface?
  - ericd 16y ago
    Are you talking about Priority Inbox? Because it's now one of my top 10 favorite software upgrades, ever.
- bconway 16y ago
  Like that background fiasco? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20007366-265.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20007366-265.html Or maybe you were being facetious. Tough to tell.
  - zbanks 16y ago
    Forcing a background for all logged-in users is kind of a small mishap. Adding a huge new search feature that pretty much renovates the workflow of the UI is a much larger, and harder decision.
- aheilbut 16y ago
  I have complete trust that Google is doing their damnedest to maximize Adwords revenues, and I highly doubt that they would have made a change like this without knowing for sure that it would increase impressions and clicks.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Oh, if you only knew... I work in Search, the same department that was primarily responsible for Instant. We're explicitly told not to worry about revenue. For a launch of this scale, Ads is involved if only to make sure that it doesn't bankrupt the company (it wouldn't look very good on the 10-Q to have revenue suddenly drop to zero). But we can and have launched things that decrease revenue if doing so is the right thing for users.
    - derefr 16y ago
      Do you try to optimize for user satisfaction, user productivity, or somewhere in-between? A more "interactive" search—like one where you're constantly looking down at the morphing result list as you type—can, at the same time, increase satisfaction while being slower to use. I guess this is almost an ethical question—do you give people what they want, or what is good for them?—but I'm mainly wondering whether there's an established Google policy on the matter.
      - diN0bot 16y ago
        Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
        derefr 16y ago
        My definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example. However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice before your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will decrease their net happiness over time.
- andreyf 16y ago
  To make it a little less meta, one thing to keep in mind is that most people who use Google don't touch-type, so this is really intended for them to have a "oh, it knew what I wanted before I typed it" moment. Because there really was such a moment, internally, it was called Psychic Search, a name deemed too risqué for public release.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Groxx 16y ago
Actually... I think they may be right. Though I have my own theories as to why: More results = more time reading results, = more ad impressions. If you hit two letters and it seems to have decent results, you're probably going to look to see if it is what you wanted, rather than finishing your search term. Good for Google's income. In addition, on the other side of the equation: if you don't know exactly what you're finding, more results more quickly means you're more likely to find exactly what you were looking for... which is good for Google, because you'll come back, and good for you, because you found what you wanted. More time is more time, but I typically visit Google for all of 5 seconds. Having it take 10 seconds to find better results (and in a few wide-ranging searches, I definitely got better results due to the immediate feedback) is worth it to me.
- il 16y ago
  Google gets paid for clicks, not impressions. As long as the same percentage of searches terminate in clicks on ads their revenue will remain unaffected. The only conceivable impact on ads is that traffic will shift from long-tail to shorter keywords as people find what they need earlier in the search process. The exact impact this will have on click prices is unclear.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Thought I saw somewhere that they were defining an ad impression as one which was on-screen for 3 seconds during an Instant search. That would seem to imply they're extracting some value from impressions alone. Could've misinterpreted, though.
    - immad 16y ago
      That is how they define an impression in their reporting but they are still payed on a click basis.
olegkikin 16y ago
I have two problems with it 1) It makes search slower on my slow netbook (all these DOM operations aren't free, you know). So while I type some long phrase, Google does all these meaningless searches (that I don't even look at), and slows down the browser tremendously. (I use Chrome on the netbook). 2) I cannot turn it off. I tried. I went to "Search settings", selected "Do not use Google Instant", saved the settings. It's still on. When I go to settings again, "Use Google Instant" is still checked.
- cwho 16y ago
  which browser are you using?
- _delirium 16y ago
  > meaningless searches (that I don't even look at) One of my complaints is that I do look at those searches, which derail me. Those results, along with some of the completions, are often related and interesting, but not actually what I was looking for, so I go off on a distraction quest with "oh, that's interesting", before I finish actually searching for what I had intended to search for. Possibly a personal failing, but I definitely so far feel like Google Instant is adding one more distraction to an already-distracting internet. It sometimes feels like a Google Instant version of the six degrees of Wikipedia game: which topics completely unrelated to what I'm supposed to be doing can I reach via one- to three-word prefixes of search phrases I'm legitimately looking for as part of something productive?
- kd0amg 16y ago
  I'll add mine: 3) I can no longer use command-enter to put the new search results in a new tab. 4) Sometimes it lets my type out a modification to my search but then reverts back to the old one. 5) Closing the tab/window search results still trips the alert for unsent form data. So far, the only way I've found is to turn it off is to disable javascript when searching.
- RossM 16y ago
  I've been thinking about #1 a lot - for the most part not many people need to know what comes up and it is distracting. If I were to make my own implementation I thought about adding a 0.5-1 second delay after key-up before fetching results but it obviously wouldn't be "instant". In my opinion the behaviour of "Turn instant off" should be that the instant UI is still the same, but results aren't fetched until the user presses Enter, and have a third option for the old functionality.
streamline 16y ago
The only thing that i care about is that it helps a lot for doing incremental searches, e.g. if you are searching for someone, you can add keywords like their occupation, university expertise and it works really well. most of the ppl crying over this are doing this because now there SEO is all messed up and people can look for things that they want much more efficiently. Consider so many people who rather looked at results that they got rather than modifying their searches. also people will choose top 5-6 results, so if your results are not in top 5-6 they are worth much less. All this talk is nothing but google hate. if you just dont want to use this feature press enter every time you type.
djhworld 16y ago
I hardly ever use the Google homepage to search anyway, I always use the address bar in Chrome so this new feature is largely irrelevant to me.
- notahacker 16y ago
  it's also largely irrelevant to the many people here who type faster than Google can serve them results
- streamline 16y ago
  I only see there doodle when it is mentioned in blogs or someone on twitter or facebook
WingForward 16y ago
1) Who searches on "sausage" or "Sausalito"? I might search for 'sausage making quote' or 'Sausalito italian restaurant'. And while I type that I get faded type ahead in my search box and results popping up on the screen. Annoying. 2) As long as I'm criticizing, I also use quotes in about half my searches, but Google's type ahead feature strips them out rendering the function useless. 3) OK, a rave about Google's search tools...being able to search in past 24 hours, week, month, year, etc is wonderful when trying to find an answer to a specific technical problem. But Instand? I turned it off within a couple hours. It's too distracting.

38 points by loboman 16y ago

I, on the contrary, trust Google here. They're known for their extensive testing. I highly highly doubt that they would make such a major change to their main page without knowing for sure that it would be for the better.

nolite 16y ago
Like they tested that crappy new Gmail interface?
- ericd 16y ago
  Are you talking about Priority Inbox? Because it's now one of my top 10 favorite software upgrades, ever.
bconway 16y ago
Like that background fiasco? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20007366-265.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20007366-265.html Or maybe you were being facetious. Tough to tell.
- zbanks 16y ago
  Forcing a background for all logged-in users is kind of a small mishap. Adding a huge new search feature that pretty much renovates the workflow of the UI is a much larger, and harder decision.
aheilbut 16y ago
I have complete trust that Google is doing their damnedest to maximize Adwords revenues, and I highly doubt that they would have made a change like this without knowing for sure that it would increase impressions and clicks.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Oh, if you only knew... I work in Search, the same department that was primarily responsible for Instant. We're explicitly told not to worry about revenue. For a launch of this scale, Ads is involved if only to make sure that it doesn't bankrupt the company (it wouldn't look very good on the 10-Q to have revenue suddenly drop to zero). But we can and have launched things that decrease revenue if doing so is the right thing for users.
  - derefr 16y ago
    Do you try to optimize for user satisfaction, user productivity, or somewhere in-between? A more "interactive" search—like one where you're constantly looking down at the morphing result list as you type—can, at the same time, increase satisfaction while being slower to use. I guess this is almost an ethical question—do you give people what they want, or what is good for them?—but I'm mainly wondering whether there's an established Google policy on the matter.
    - diN0bot 16y ago
      Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
      - derefr 16y ago
        My definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example. However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice before your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will decrease their net happiness over time.
andreyf 16y ago
To make it a little less meta, one thing to keep in mind is that most people who use Google don't touch-type, so this is really intended for them to have a "oh, it knew what I wanted before I typed it" moment. Because there really was such a moment, internally, it was called Psychic Search, a name deemed too risqué for public release.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Groxx 16y ago

Actually... I think they may be right. Though I have my own theories as to why: More results = more time reading results, = more ad impressions. If you hit two letters and it seems to have decent results, you're probably going to look to see if it is what you wanted, rather than finishing your search term. Good for Google's income. In addition, on the other side of the equation: if you don't know exactly what you're finding, more results more quickly means you're more likely to find exactly what you were looking for... which is good for Google, because you'll come back, and good for you, because you found what you wanted. More time is more time, but I typically visit Google for all of 5 seconds. Having it take 10 seconds to find better results (and in a few wide-ranging searches, I definitely got better results due to the immediate feedback) is worth it to me.

il 16y ago
Google gets paid for clicks, not impressions. As long as the same percentage of searches terminate in clicks on ads their revenue will remain unaffected. The only conceivable impact on ads is that traffic will shift from long-tail to shorter keywords as people find what they need earlier in the search process. The exact impact this will have on click prices is unclear.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Thought I saw somewhere that they were defining an ad impression as one which was on-screen for 3 seconds during an Instant search. That would seem to imply they're extracting some value from impressions alone. Could've misinterpreted, though.
  - immad 16y ago
    That is how they define an impression in their reporting but they are still payed on a click basis.

olegkikin 16y ago

I have two problems with it 1) It makes search slower on my slow netbook (all these DOM operations aren't free, you know). So while I type some long phrase, Google does all these meaningless searches (that I don't even look at), and slows down the browser tremendously. (I use Chrome on the netbook). 2) I cannot turn it off. I tried. I went to "Search settings", selected "Do not use Google Instant", saved the settings. It's still on. When I go to settings again, "Use Google Instant" is still checked.

cwho 16y ago
which browser are you using?
_delirium 16y ago
> meaningless searches (that I don't even look at) One of my complaints is that I do look at those searches, which derail me. Those results, along with some of the completions, are often related and interesting, but not actually what I was looking for, so I go off on a distraction quest with "oh, that's interesting", before I finish actually searching for what I had intended to search for. Possibly a personal failing, but I definitely so far feel like Google Instant is adding one more distraction to an already-distracting internet. It sometimes feels like a Google Instant version of the six degrees of Wikipedia game: which topics completely unrelated to what I'm supposed to be doing can I reach via one- to three-word prefixes of search phrases I'm legitimately looking for as part of something productive?
kd0amg 16y ago
I'll add mine: 3) I can no longer use command-enter to put the new search results in a new tab. 4) Sometimes it lets my type out a modification to my search but then reverts back to the old one. 5) Closing the tab/window search results still trips the alert for unsent form data. So far, the only way I've found is to turn it off is to disable javascript when searching.
RossM 16y ago
I've been thinking about #1 a lot - for the most part not many people need to know what comes up and it is distracting. If I were to make my own implementation I thought about adding a 0.5-1 second delay after key-up before fetching results but it obviously wouldn't be "instant". In my opinion the behaviour of "Turn instant off" should be that the instant UI is still the same, but results aren't fetched until the user presses Enter, and have a third option for the old functionality.

streamline 16y ago

The only thing that i care about is that it helps a lot for doing incremental searches, e.g. if you are searching for someone, you can add keywords like their occupation, university expertise and it works really well. most of the ppl crying over this are doing this because now there SEO is all messed up and people can look for things that they want much more efficiently. Consider so many people who rather looked at results that they got rather than modifying their searches. also people will choose top 5-6 results, so if your results are not in top 5-6 they are worth much less. All this talk is nothing but google hate. if you just dont want to use this feature press enter every time you type.

djhworld 16y ago

I hardly ever use the Google homepage to search anyway, I always use the address bar in Chrome so this new feature is largely irrelevant to me.

notahacker 16y ago
it's also largely irrelevant to the many people here who type faster than Google can serve them results
streamline 16y ago
I only see there doodle when it is mentioned in blogs or someone on twitter or facebook

WingForward 16y ago

1) Who searches on "sausage" or "Sausalito"? I might search for 'sausage making quote' or 'Sausalito italian restaurant'. And while I type that I get faded type ahead in my search box and results popping up on the screen. Annoying. 2) As long as I'm criticizing, I also use quotes in about half my searches, but Google's type ahead feature strips them out rendering the function useless. 3) OK, a rave about Google's search tools...being able to search in past 24 hours, week, month, year, etc is wonderful when trying to find an answer to a specific technical problem. But Instand? I turned it off within a couple hours. It's too distracting.