6 ms·
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
by 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 agoLike they tested that crappy new Gmail interface?
- ericd 16y agoAre you talking about Priority Inbox? Because it's now one of my top 10 favorite software upgrades, ever.
- bconway 16y agoLike 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 agoForcing 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 agoI 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 agoOh, 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 agoDo 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 agoYour 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 agoMy 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 agoTo 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.