2 ms·
Simple and valuable to Google, perhaps, but a major sign that they're no longer doing what's best for users. It breaks the web in at least two ways: makes it sl
by gruseom 15y ago
Simple and valuable to Google, perhaps, but a major sign that they're no longer doing what's best for users. It breaks the web in at least two ways: makes it slower and hides the true links. I hate that they do this. Nothing has been more destructive of the warm feeling I used to have toward Google. I still use them out of habit but eventually irritation and the rise of some credible competitor will coincide and cause me to switch.
- rbanffy 15y ago> a major sign that they're no longer doing what's best for users. How exactly improving the relevance of the returned results is not the best for their users? > makes it slower 257 ms here. Not that much compared to the 2 seconds the actual server took to start returning the data. > hides the true links The proper URL is the green line under the title. Here it says "www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/Site/pubs-pdf/BC03.pdf".
- _delirium 15y ago> The proper URL is the green line under the title. If the URL is short enough that works fine, but if it's longer you can't copy the URL from there, because Google will insert an ellipsis in the middle of the long URL. For example, an article I was searching for just now shows up on the green line as ssdi.di.fct.unl.pt/masters/mcl/content/.../Robinson-CL2000.pdf. Can't copy that, and can't get the original URL from the right-click either!
- rbanffy 15y agoIsn't this occasional problem worth having in return for better search results? How often you copy the link URL instead of checking what's on the other side?