4 ms·
If you want Googles search results, but without all the interface spaff, use Scroogle: https://ssl.scroogle.org/ https://ssl.scroogle.org/
by mike-cardwell 15y ago
If you want Googles search results, but without all the interface spaff, use Scroogle: https://ssl.scroogle.org/ https://ssl.scroogle.org/
- blauwbilgorgel 15y agoGoogle accessibility search doesn't violate Google's TOS, yet gives the cleanest possible interface: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=000183394137052953072%3Azc1orsc6mbq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=test&sa=Search http://www.google.com/cse?cx=000183394137052953072%3Azc1orsc... But scrolling seems to be somewhat broken. Removing the "In Cache" link probably makes the user interface less cluttered. I used it a lot, and had to go look for it yesterday. From the official support thread: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web+Search/thread?tid=3340c5b01f83f283&hl=en#all http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web+Search/thread?tid=... But I don't have the user data that Google has. If less than 1% of the users account for the "in cache"-usage, the solution to require an extra click to get to it, is more sane, viewed in that light. Shouldn't be too hard to make a browser plug-in / Greasemonkey script, so to add a link to: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ycombinator.com https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.yc... directly under search results.
- icebraining 15y agoI really dislike services like that. Searches cost real money to Google, using them through that is almost stealing, in my opinion. Just use a different search engine. EDIT: I'd like if someone would reply if they disagree. Do you dispute that each search costs money to Google, or what?
- jellicle 15y agoGoogle clearly doesn't think that that Scroogle is a net minus to them, so why would you think so?
- 12334454 15y agoHow do you know that they think that scroogle is not a net minus to them?
- sixtofour 15y agoThat they've been operating for a long time gives me that impression.
- icebraining 15y agoOr they just don't want to deal with the PR problems.
- thematt 15y agoI feel no guilt. Google's main revenue stream is advertisements, which I will never click on. Yet, I still use Google continuously. Does that mean I'm stealing? Either way I'm getting something for free and not contributing to their revenue.
- icebraining 15y agoHmm, I suppose that's true - I never click them either, if only because my eyes skip them unconsciously - but on the other hand, accepting $20 from my aunt or taking it from her wallet are very different, despite her ending up with the same money.
- oliciv 15y agoYou're contributing data to them
- staunch 15y agoThis is absurd. It's like worrying about charging your laptop in Google's offices because it increases their electricity bill.
- icebraining 15y agoI wouldn't charge my laptop in anyone's office (or home) without asking them and receiving permission. I don't see what's absurd about this.
- staunch 15y agoIf you were sitting in Google's lobby (with permission) you would feel the need to ask permission before plugging in your laptop's power adapter?
- icebraining 15y agoYes. But the situation is not analogous, so the answer is irrelevant.
- dewiz 15y agothere is no cache link in there...
- mike-cardwell 15y agoScroogles lack of cache link isn't relevant to the comment I replied to. "I am getting a hunch (just a vague feeling) that we might be approaching a time where a new, simpler search experience would pick up a lot of users - maybe amongst us HN/early adopters?" If it was a top level comment, you'd have a point.