6 ms·
Ask HN: Am I the only one who's not in love with Google Instant?
Let me make it clear that I do like the idea of Google Instant. And, YouTube Instant. And, HN Instant. Edit: Now iTunes Instant too.
But can someone give me an official reason why it's better? I think it's safe to say that I prefer the old Google better than this...being instant and Ajaxy is nice but for now it's tacky.
I really did just prefer the Search Suggestions more than anything.
What am I missing?
- EnergizerBunny 16y agoI turned it off. Maybe I'm a luddite but nothing that Google does of late is very interesting.
- KeithMajhor 16y agoBing is making them nervous. Instant has gotten them a lot of attention and Bing doesn't have the infrastructure to imitate it.
- fleitz 16y agoThere was a bing instant a few months ago. It was a 3rd party site made via the bing API, but it had very similar speed. I'm interested in how you know that bing does not have the infrastructure to support it?
- what 16y agoHere's the Bing Instant: http://www.istartedsomething.com/livesearch/ http://www.istartedsomething.com/livesearch/ It's actually from a year ago. It doesn't automatically search for a predicted query, just uses what you've typed in so far. But you can mouse over the query suggestions to search for them.
- lvumam 16y agoHow about http://www.binginstant.com http://www.binginstant.com
- ugh 16y agoI don’t think that Google or Microsoft care much when ten, one-hunred or one-thousand users suddenly search five times as often as before (as is the case with this project). Problems only start to appear when suddenly every single user searches five times as much. That’s a huge difference (from infinitesimal to 5 times the demands on the infrastructure). That doesn’t answer your question why Microsoft couldn’t handle it but a small project is also no evidence that Microsoft could do it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- White_N_Nerdy 16y agoI have Javascript turned off entirely for www.google.com because I don't like the redirects on their links and I have found no other way to get rid of them in Chrome. I tried instant search in Firefox. I don't like the way the search box changes position and I don't like the big drop-down notification and I don't like the way that when you press Enter, it refreshes the results. I guess it's safe to say I don't like it.
- sosuke 16y agoMay I ask what you are using to disabled Javascript on the Google search pages? That sounds really useful.
- flannell 16y agoI'd be interested to. At the moment I just use Firefox web browser and the Webdeveloper plugin added with a tick on option 'disable Javascript'
- White_N_Nerdy 16y agoIn Chrome, I go to Wrench -> Options -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings... -> Javascript -> Exceptions... -> Add... -> Pattern: www.google.com Action: Block
- sosuke 16y agoThat is perfect, thank you very much!
- yrb 16y agoI don't think we are in the target demographic for these 'features'. If you know how to structure queries, and can touch type the usefulness is greatly diminished. However there are a lot of people out there that can't touch type and have to reformulate their query multiple times before they get 'acceptable' results. So Google instant actually has a meaningful increase of their iteration time, and thus enables them to find better results faster.
- StavrosK 16y agoOh God, there are people who click on the words in the autocomplete box, aren't there...
- ams6110 16y agoI don't like it either. That said I don't even like the autocomplete suggestions in the search box. I don't like intellisense or anything else that actively throws completions in my face. I do like tab-completion e.g. at a shell prompt for filenames, but that's something I initiate. It's the automatic kind I don't like.
- lionhearted 16y agoI like it overall, but I miss the second search box at the bottom of the page.
- ugh 16y agoI like it a lot. It just seems to me that this is how all searches should work, i.e. displaying their results immediately without initiating the search. Most of my desktop programs already work that way, why shouldn’t Google?
- moe 16y agoMost of my desktop programs already work that way, why shouldn’t Google? I think there's a difference. Most desktop apps return structured results in tabular format. Those are much easier to skim because you know what to expect in each field, and you're usually looking at only one column anyways (e.g. the "title" or "filename"). Google results are not tabular (perhaps they should be?) and I find it rather hard to keep track of what I had already skimmed while the display shuffles furiously.
- nostromo 16y ago> Most of my desktop programs already work that way Well, sort of. If I start a search for "go" on my computer, it looks for that text specifically. Google looks for "google maps" -- which is more distracting to me personally.
- brosephius 16y agoI hate it. I'm very precise with my queries, so it's faster for me to type the whole thing in. I particularly hated how the search field grabbed focus when you pressed a key anywhere on the page, because if you did it unintentionally it would register in the textbox and the search results would change. I dunno, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I had no problems whatsoever with my previous search workflow.
- sofuture 16y agoNo, I don't like it. I know exactly what I want to type, and I don't like the jarring flashes of intermittent guesses of results on my way to 'just typing what I want'.
- aufreak3 16y agoI believe you can turn it off. Just do it. They're watching you anyways.
- nkurz 16y agoWell, I appreciate that it's still possible to turn it off, which I did immediately. I think it probably serves a purpose on mobile devices where text entry is difficult and slow, but I don't see the point otherwise. My main gripe with it is that it limits the number of results returned to 10, which I find to be unusable. I have it set to 100 (the current max) and wish it could be much higher so I didn't have to keep hitting 'Next'. I can see why Google would want to return only 10 results (more ad impressions, less work for their servers) but anyone here actually prefer getting so few results? I've almost never seen anyone else's browser set up to return anything but the default, and have never known whether this is ignorance, acceptance, or conscious choice.
- SapphireSun 16y agoUsually, if the result is not in the first 3 or 4 I try a new search, so changing the default doesn't do much for me.
- Amanjeev 16y agoI do not like it either. I just hate the discomforting and irritating sudden changes of content. And also it breaks gleebox (thegleebox.com)
- yef 16y agoThe rationale is that it makes searches faster, but turn it off if you don't like it. http://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en http://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en and search for "Google Instant". I haven't quite made up my mind yet. I don't mind it, but then again most of my searches come from the Chrome address bar.
- jamesbritt 16y agoI turned it off in Firefox because it seems to capture EVERY key press and apply it to the search, obliterating assorted navigation shortcuts I have in place via some add-ons. But, every without that, there's a noticeable lag in handling my typing, which is annoying, and I've yet to find a result I wanted before I was done entering all I intended into the search field. It's an issue with many AJAXy UI items; they are so busy trying to second-guess my every keystroke that my every keystroke becomes a burden to enter.
- bmr 16y agoI don't like it either. I think it falls into the category of technically impressive, but real-world silly. The small decrease in search time is completely offset by feeling like I'm having a seizure.
- binarysoul 16y agoI miss having another search bar at the bottom of the search results.. Turns out, now that its not there, I used it a lot
- frederickcook 16y agoI find it very useful when searching for the answer to a programming question. If the MAN page for the language/framework/whatever doesn't provide me with enough information, and I"m looking for an implementation example, it's great. Sometimes it takes a certain keyword or multiple to find the specific result I'm looking for, and I love that I can just keep playing around with the search query until I find something that looks right.
- gojomo 16y agoI appreciate that on many searches, especially simple/common ones, Google Instant may save some seconds. I think it helps me less than others because as a heavy, technical user, my queries tend to be longer and more unique -- less likely the autocompletes or top-predicted query are what I meant. One negative for me is that it drops my displayed results to 10, from the 100 I normally prefer. I like to scan several screenfuls of snippets to pick just a few results that are most likely to be best. The flickering display of interim results is a little distracting -- but not a major problem. I mostly search from the Firefox search box, so only see it occasionally. So, I haven't yet turned it off -- still giving it chance to see how it works with more experience.
- quizbiz 16y agoI only now have begun to use the I'm feeling lucky feature. I will type in my specific query, or rather begin to and as soon as it brings up a match I hit the down arrow and then I hit the right arrow. This has already become muscle memory and I recommend that everyone give this a try.
- doron 16y agoI love it. It is a great tool for finding literary references,for instance, recalling part of a quote or a poem you have in memory, and correcting based on results, turns out to be a great time saver for me. When my search is exact, I don't use it, and since I search google primarily through chrome or the search bar in firefox, this feature is only visible to me when I actually require it.
- baddox 16y agoI always make my first search from the Chrome address bar, and if I then modify my search on the actual Google page, I finish typing and hit Enter well before seeing any of the so-called instantness.
- jackfoxy 16y agoI do not like it. Until today I couldn't get Google to use my saved search settings. It kept using Instant and giving me 10 results per page. I have developed my Googleing technique over a long time. This was a major interruption and for no benefit to me. Maybe if all you do is enter searches that always display the result you are looking for in the top 10, this is something good.
- BJakopovic 16y agoI'm the same. It is nifty and a cool trick... but didn't deserve to enter the mainstream (in it's current form). But there are underlying motivations that warranted the change before it was ready for mass deployment.
- drewse 16y agoSure, it changes the way we will search. But is that a good thing? It's all about whether we want change. Change can be good, but think about how long (if ever) it could take for more time to be saved than time lost getting used to the change in the first place. Also think about it this way: people have been searching on search engines for over decade in an very uniform way, regardless of the search engine. Search engines aren't that intuitive, even if they try to be. They aren't that user friendly, even if they try to be. But people worked with what they were given, and got quite good at. Now Google wants to break our habits, and a I don't think I want to. Not only because of the time I would lose changing my habits, but because it works just fine. Another reason why Google Instant does not work for me is since it only works for "browsing" and not "finding". Sometimes people will go to Google to just "browse" a broad topic. They're not necessarily looking for a specific website or detail. So after entering a broad search term, Google Instant helps them narrow their search query. On the other hand, sometimes people will go to Google to "find" a specific topic subject, point, or answer. Therefore they don't want suggested search terms. They have already crafted a detailed search in the heads and are not looking for suggestions. In these cases, Google Instant just acts as a distraction. And that brings me to my problem with Google Instant: I use it for "finding" 90% of the time and only 10% of the time do I use it to "browse". I have a feeling that many tech-savy people here on HN probably have a similar distribution of their time spent on Google Since Google Instant only works for us the 10% of the time, it's hard to justify using it all.
- whackedspinach 16y agoI like it for certain searches. If I'm trying to debug something, putting in the full error message doesn't always help. I start typing in part of it though, and I may get someone with a similar, but not exact issue. so it's useful for things like that. But if I know what I'm looking for, I can just as easily use the Chromium address bar.
- asdf333 16y agoOne person its great for is Google. I bet they save a bunch of cpu resources by 'directing' people to the right search queries (which are cached) instead of dealing w/ misspellings and running searches that the user doesn't really want anyway.
- cloudkj 16y agoIt also allows them to serve more ad impressions at a much faster clip.
- AndyKelley 16y agoHow does it save resources for Google? It can only cost more resources, since every time someone searches now, they are actually searching about ten times. Can you explain your logic?
- crux 16y agoI thought it was neat when I first came across it, and thought, 'well, why not?' but the fact is that the only time I am typing into the google search bar in the webpage, and not built into my browser's address bar, is to tweak the results that I have gotten out of a search. And I tend to do that while reading the results themselves. After I had those results pulled out from under me while reading several times in a row, I turned it off.
- woodall 16y agoIt is slowly my searches down. a-jax is neat, but it still takes time to load. When I query something that is more than five words it just gets annoying. They do let you disable it, and that is better than nothing.
- Matthewp 16y agoI switched to Bing.
- poundy 16y agoOr you could turn off instant search.
- jsz0 16y agoNot a fan of it either. It feels like fool's gold to me. Partial searches don't get me the results I need but the screen updates seem to trigger me to read the results anyway. I know searching for "Barack Obama" isn't going to help me find the text of a speech he gave 5 months ago on HCR but I'm profoundly optimistic somehow it will. I recognize this isn't Google's problem but we all want to believe in magic sometimes. The parallel that jumped out to me was tab completion in command lines or CLI history. Sometimes you spend more time mucking around with this than it would have taken to just type the command manually.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y agoSorry, big duck duck go user so I haven't even seen the new feature in action.
- grantjgordon 16y agoIt's a neat-o trick, but in actual use I: a) haven't found any practical benefit to having it b) feel slightly ill-at-ease with the way it affects impression and click counting for adwords.
- Miserlou57 16y agoI tried Youtube Instant first and hated it. Should have opened my mouth earlier... It's okay; maybe I'll just get used to it, like every Facebook revision, ever.
- Jach 16y agoI'm mostly indifferent to it. I like not having to have a noticeable delay after pressing enter or whatever, and this doesn't affect my autopager addon, so I'm leaving it on unless it makes me mad somehow later. Most of my searches are in the google-bar anyway rather than through their homepage so I don't get it much.
- brazzy 16y agoI'm utterly indifferent, because for about a year now I've been using the search box in Firefox exclusively. Instant isn't going to make me switch back.
- c1sc0 16y agoI don't like the jump from centered to top. But it doesn't really affect me because most of my searches go through a browser search box anyway.
- drivingmenuts 16y agoI did one search and then turned it off.
- Tycho 16y agoI think they should make a slight change so that when you delete all of the text, it keeps the previous results visible until you start typing again. Sometimes just as you clear the field you catch a relevant result in the corner of your eye, but a moment later it all vanishes, with no 'back'
- Gormo 16y agoI don't even like the idea of it. I think it removes an important aspect of UI that has until now been so entrenched that we take it completely for granted: pressing 'enter' signifies the completion of input. In a conversation between humans, it's considered rude to begin responding to someone before they're finished talking. This behavior is more than just an interruption; it ignores the full thought intended by the speaker in favor of an assumption. Interacting with software is no different; even if the conversational dynamic doesn't directly apply, we still have similar subconscious expectations. I don't want a response until I press enter. Before that, I'm in the process of constructing my search terms as I type them, often revising them, expanding them, and correcting typos. Besides all of that, Google is now executing several queries for every single query that would have been provided previously. Most users are probably not even going to look at the results until they're done typing, so this is probably a significant waste of bandwidth and CPU cycles that could be put to better use.
- vicaya 16y agoIt doesn't impact me as I use https://encrypted.google.com/ https://encrypted.google.com/ (automagically via the wonderful HTTPS Everywhere firefox plugin.) which doesn't have the instant feature turned on by default. OTOH, it's a very smart move for G from technical POVs, since their cache hit rate would be much higher as the queries are normalized in greater portion, so that the real impact on their backend is small in comparison (of the overall search volume.)