7 ms·

Am I getting too old for this (Google instant rant)?

43 points by shin_lao 16y ago

wccrawford 16y ago
Maybe he -is- getting old. He's already forgotten that most computer-users these days aren't the incredible touch-typists that most IT professionals are. When people tap a single key at a time, having those instant results could means minutes of time saved when searching for something, especially if they don't really know what they are looking for. Yes, as an IT professional, I find it useless. But I know many people who would find it a blessing.
- alex_c 16y ago
  I think this is exactly the point he is missing. I find it annoying/distracting, and disabled it after a couple of days... but I don't think it's a feature aimed at people who run their own technology blog. Picture people who hunt and peck their search query one painstaking key at a time, and finally look up at the screen in triumph once they're done... now the search results are already waiting for them.
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    I think such people might be overwhelmed more than helped.
- dkarl 16y ago
  I think you've got it backwards. You have to be old or an IT professional (interested in usability) to care about people who don't type. Young people regard the inability to type fast as one of those social problems that will inevitably be solved by mortality, like racism (except they're probably right about typing.) (How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school papers in a word processor since sixth grade or earlier?)
  - Figs 16y ago
    "How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school papers in a word processor since sixth grade or earlier?" Carpal tunnel?
    - rudyfink 16y ago
      Judging from some of the articles I seen on-line the answer may, in part, be plagiarism or more politely extensive copy and paste. That seems to simple of an answer though.
    - rtra 16y ago
      Actually, if you type with only two fingers you will be moving your forearm a lot, which is good. Edit: I want to elaborate on this. My brother, who's 18 years old, has never learnt how to type properly, but he is, of coures, very fast, using only two fingers. He types with great energy, but less wrist strain. The stronger arm and shoulder muscles can easily take care of the job, it is the wrist muscles that are weak.
- roadnottaken 16y ago
  Agreed. In fact, I'd guess that most computer folk (e.g. IT professionals) use the Google search box in Firefox (via ctrl/cmd K), and rarely if-ever visit www.google.com.
- carussell 16y ago
  So how does it work any better than Google Suggest without also having the same drawbacks he mentions for those users?
jsz0 16y ago
Or is Google Instant just too nerdy? Isn't it really not nerdy enough? The auto-suggestions steer you towards common search terms and editing your query for instant results is really only practical on short imprecise searches. It seems to be a feature that exists for people who aren't very good at searching.
onewland 16y ago
I don't like this new thing. It is not similar to the old thing, which I do like!
- barrkel 16y ago
  And on the other hand, not all shiny new things are an improvement on the old. For a company as allegedly fearful of opportunity cost as Google[1], we should expect that well over 90% of the new stuff they do sucks more than their old stuff. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895
ezl 16y ago
I don't understand why anyone complains about Google Instant. It requires one less mouseclick. If you want to pretend you're using the old Google, you can just close your eyes while you type, randomly click your mouse, then open your eyes. You will have before you the same results that original Google would have returned. Unless you get confused by the "Instant" feedback along the way (like you somehow get distracted by shiny other searches that Google recommends, forget what you were originally searching for and get "tricked" into some new query), it shouldn't be an issue.
- barrkel 16y ago
  I don't understand how you use your mouse when using Google, other than to select a search result? Normally I just press Return. The problem with Instant is precisely the risk of distraction. It's the same reason I don't use Suggest - and in fact, I now am forced to avoid www.google.com completely, as there is now no easy way of disabling Suggest on the web page. It used to be you could switch between Suggest and non-Suggest; now, your only choices are between Suggest and Instant. I'm sticking with the search box in the browser. (Actually, there is a way to disable Suggest: http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0 http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0 ; but that's impractical except as a bookmark or home page.)
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    I think he's suggesting using your mouse to select a result.
    - barrkel 16y ago
      I think he's suggesting clicking on the Search button, because there's no difference in mouse clicks between Google Instant and old Google if you press Enter upon entering your query.
  - aw3c2 16y ago
    You could disable Javascript.
- 16y ago
dkarl 16y ago
The young thrive while the old are overwhelmed because the young are more successfully discriminating. I caught myself slowing down my typing and pausing between words to give myself more time to scan the instant results. I think that's the "old" reaction -- new technology slows you down. I suspect the "young" reaction to Google Instant would be, "That flickery thing Google does before it shows my results? I'm supposed to read that? I don't have time for that. If I ever type that slow, just kill me, because I don't ever want to be that old."
jinushaun 16y ago
I'm constantly make WRONG searches now with Google Instant. Based on habit, I type my searches quickly and hit enter. However, with Instant, the Auto Complete isn't able to catch up and I end up selecting an outdated incorrect SUGGESTED query instead of my ACTUAL search query. Google Instant actually slows me down since I have to wait for the Auto Complete to catch up.
- kordless 16y ago
  Yup. I turned it off on all my machines.
michaelbuckbee 16y ago
Google instant is really useful for the unsophisticated users typing URLs into the search box instead of the address bar. With Google instant, type the letter "f", you'll get Facebook.com as the first link because that many people are searching for it on Google. For almost every letter of the alphabet the first instant search term is a domain name.
ImperatorLunae 16y ago
"Visual feedback gives you the illusion of speed, like a progress bar reduces the impression of waiting, but that’s all it is: an illusion." I read an article once about elevators ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_paumgarten http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_... ). It was spun-off the "man getting stuck in an elevator for 41 hours" story. In the article, the writer cites a particular anecdote about an elevator company installing faster elevators in a particular building. Patrons of the building, however, complained that the elevators were now slower. The company was confused--how was this possible? It turns out, the new elevators lacked mirrors. People couldn't straighten their hair and pick their teeth while standing in it, so the ride felt longer. People perceive time in odd ways. Google's taking a stab at this perception; the illusion of speed in the eyes of the user counts more than physical speed. The user is the yard stick, not engineers with stopwatches. The author here casts aside illusion like it's meaningless, but that's far from the truth. Look at the Parthenon, whose columns are tapered to make it look bigger, or magicians, who stun audiences with clever distraction. Casting aside illusion is on par with casting aside mathematics; it may be difficult to understand at times and require a large amount of labor to learn, but neither can be avoided without losing some room to maneuver.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  Agreed. The illusion of speed gets you some of the benefits of actual speed, user satisfaction in particular.
tapp 16y ago
I'm an "IT professional" and, worse, an old IT professional (closing on 40.) I strongly disliked the idea of instant search when it launched, but to my surprise, I'm actually finding it very useful. I've been able to train myself to avoid focusing on the results pane until I get deep into my query string (3rd or 4th word.) That tends to be where I organically pause anyway, while deciding whether I should tack on another word to my long-tail queries. By that point in the query process, the noisy and wildly-irrelevant entries have already been weeded out, and I can start focusing on the results pane. Interestingly, on several occasions recently, I've seen a promising result flicker past as I'm in the process of adding that 4th word to my query. When I'm done typing, I see that none of the results are as good as the one that flickered past when I had just 3 words in my query, so I delete the last word and voila. Result that I might not have found without instant search. I'm still not crazy about some of the larger implications (pushing most users towards the same query strings, etc.) but am finding it surprisingly useful on a personal level. FWIW, YMMV, etc...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
danbmil99 16y ago
hah, I'm trying to turn it off but finding it is impossible. I save my preferences but it's still there. As Alex says in Clockwork Orange, "Me Glazzies! I can't close me glazzies!"
- netaddict 16y ago
  Yes, Google stores this preference in Cookies (which is wierd). So if your browser clears cookies on exit, 'instant' is again enabled by default.
ww520 16y ago
I actually don't have plus or minus feeling about Google Instant. I usually typed pretty fast and the instant result won't come up before I finish typing. Also I often use the browser's quick search on the address bar, which bypasses Instant completely.
- treeface 16y ago
  Not completely...you still land on the results page.

43 points by shin_lao 16y ago

Maybe he -is- getting old. He's already forgotten that most computer-users these days aren't the incredible touch-typists that most IT professionals are. When people tap a single key at a time, having those instant results could means minutes of time saved when searching for something, especially if they don't really know what they are looking for. Yes, as an IT professional, I find it useless. But I know many people who would find it a blessing.

alex_c 16y ago
I think this is exactly the point he is missing. I find it annoying/distracting, and disabled it after a couple of days... but I don't think it's a feature aimed at people who run their own technology blog. Picture people who hunt and peck their search query one painstaking key at a time, and finally look up at the screen in triumph once they're done... now the search results are already waiting for them.
- shin_lao 16y ago
  I think such people might be overwhelmed more than helped.
dkarl 16y ago
I think you've got it backwards. You have to be old or an IT professional (interested in usability) to care about people who don't type. Young people regard the inability to type fast as one of those social problems that will inevitably be solved by mortality, like racism (except they're probably right about typing.) (How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school papers in a word processor since sixth grade or earlier?)
- Figs 16y ago
  "How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school papers in a word processor since sixth grade or earlier?" Carpal tunnel?
  - rudyfink 16y ago
    Judging from some of the articles I seen on-line the answer may, in part, be plagiarism or more politely extensive copy and paste. That seems to simple of an answer though.
  - rtra 16y ago
    Actually, if you type with only two fingers you will be moving your forearm a lot, which is good. Edit: I want to elaborate on this. My brother, who's 18 years old, has never learnt how to type properly, but he is, of coures, very fast, using only two fingers. He types with great energy, but less wrist strain. The stronger arm and shoulder muscles can easily take care of the job, it is the wrist muscles that are weak.
roadnottaken 16y ago
Agreed. In fact, I'd guess that most computer folk (e.g. IT professionals) use the Google search box in Firefox (via ctrl/cmd K), and rarely if-ever visit www.google.com.
carussell 16y ago
So how does it work any better than Google Suggest without also having the same drawbacks he mentions for those users?

jsz0 16y ago

Or is Google Instant just too nerdy? Isn't it really not nerdy enough? The auto-suggestions steer you towards common search terms and editing your query for instant results is really only practical on short imprecise searches. It seems to be a feature that exists for people who aren't very good at searching.

onewland 16y ago

I don't like this new thing. It is not similar to the old thing, which I do like!

barrkel 16y ago
And on the other hand, not all shiny new things are an improvement on the old. For a company as allegedly fearful of opportunity cost as Google[1], we should expect that well over 90% of the new stuff they do sucks more than their old stuff. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895

ezl 16y ago

I don't understand why anyone complains about Google Instant. It requires one less mouseclick. If you want to pretend you're using the old Google, you can just close your eyes while you type, randomly click your mouse, then open your eyes. You will have before you the same results that original Google would have returned. Unless you get confused by the "Instant" feedback along the way (like you somehow get distracted by shiny other searches that Google recommends, forget what you were originally searching for and get "tricked" into some new query), it shouldn't be an issue.

barrkel 16y ago
I don't understand how you use your mouse when using Google, other than to select a search result? Normally I just press Return. The problem with Instant is precisely the risk of distraction. It's the same reason I don't use Suggest - and in fact, I now am forced to avoid www.google.com completely, as there is now no easy way of disabling Suggest on the web page. It used to be you could switch between Suggest and non-Suggest; now, your only choices are between Suggest and Instant. I'm sticking with the search box in the browser. (Actually, there is a way to disable Suggest: http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0 http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0 ; but that's impractical except as a bookmark or home page.)
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I think he's suggesting using your mouse to select a result.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    I think he's suggesting clicking on the Search button, because there's no difference in mouse clicks between Google Instant and old Google if you press Enter upon entering your query.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  You could disable Javascript.
16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

The young thrive while the old are overwhelmed because the young are more successfully discriminating. I caught myself slowing down my typing and pausing between words to give myself more time to scan the instant results. I think that's the "old" reaction -- new technology slows you down. I suspect the "young" reaction to Google Instant would be, "That flickery thing Google does before it shows my results? I'm supposed to read that? I don't have time for that. If I ever type that slow, just kill me, because I don't ever want to be that old."

jinushaun 16y ago

I'm constantly make WRONG searches now with Google Instant. Based on habit, I type my searches quickly and hit enter. However, with Instant, the Auto Complete isn't able to catch up and I end up selecting an outdated incorrect SUGGESTED query instead of my ACTUAL search query. Google Instant actually slows me down since I have to wait for the Auto Complete to catch up.

kordless 16y ago
Yup. I turned it off on all my machines.

michaelbuckbee 16y ago

Google instant is really useful for the unsophisticated users typing URLs into the search box instead of the address bar. With Google instant, type the letter "f", you'll get Facebook.com as the first link because that many people are searching for it on Google. For almost every letter of the alphabet the first instant search term is a domain name.

ImperatorLunae 16y ago

"Visual feedback gives you the illusion of speed, like a progress bar reduces the impression of waiting, but that’s all it is: an illusion." I read an article once about elevators ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_paumgarten http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_... ). It was spun-off the "man getting stuck in an elevator for 41 hours" story. In the article, the writer cites a particular anecdote about an elevator company installing faster elevators in a particular building. Patrons of the building, however, complained that the elevators were now slower. The company was confused--how was this possible? It turns out, the new elevators lacked mirrors. People couldn't straighten their hair and pick their teeth while standing in it, so the ride felt longer. People perceive time in odd ways. Google's taking a stab at this perception; the illusion of speed in the eyes of the user counts more than physical speed. The user is the yard stick, not engineers with stopwatches. The author here casts aside illusion like it's meaningless, but that's far from the truth. Look at the Parthenon, whose columns are tapered to make it look bigger, or magicians, who stun audiences with clever distraction. Casting aside illusion is on par with casting aside mathematics; it may be difficult to understand at times and require a large amount of labor to learn, but neither can be avoided without losing some room to maneuver.

joshuacc 16y ago
Agreed. The illusion of speed gets you some of the benefits of actual speed, user satisfaction in particular.

tapp 16y ago

I'm an "IT professional" and, worse, an old IT professional (closing on 40.) I strongly disliked the idea of instant search when it launched, but to my surprise, I'm actually finding it very useful. I've been able to train myself to avoid focusing on the results pane until I get deep into my query string (3rd or 4th word.) That tends to be where I organically pause anyway, while deciding whether I should tack on another word to my long-tail queries. By that point in the query process, the noisy and wildly-irrelevant entries have already been weeded out, and I can start focusing on the results pane. Interestingly, on several occasions recently, I've seen a promising result flicker past as I'm in the process of adding that 4th word to my query. When I'm done typing, I see that none of the results are as good as the one that flickered past when I had just 3 words in my query, so I delete the last word and voila. Result that I might not have found without instant search. I'm still not crazy about some of the larger implications (pushing most users towards the same query strings, etc.) but am finding it surprisingly useful on a personal level. FWIW, YMMV, etc...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

danbmil99 16y ago

hah, I'm trying to turn it off but finding it is impossible. I save my preferences but it's still there. As Alex says in Clockwork Orange, "Me Glazzies! I can't close me glazzies!"

netaddict 16y ago
Yes, Google stores this preference in Cookies (which is wierd). So if your browser clears cookies on exit, 'instant' is again enabled by default.

ww520 16y ago

I actually don't have plus or minus feeling about Google Instant. I usually typed pretty fast and the instant result won't come up before I finish typing. Also I often use the browser's quick search on the address bar, which bypasses Instant completely.

treeface 16y ago
Not completely...you still land on the results page.