3 ms·

No, actually that was a very crude looking page in 1998.

by pg 14y ago

thaumaturgy 14y ago
It was simple -- apocryphally because Larry or Sergei weren't familiar with HTML -- but I don't see what makes it crude compared to the competition at the time (http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in-the-90s-then-and-now/ http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in...).
- Arelius 14y ago
  Exactly, the simplicity and clarity, as I recall, combined with page rank of course, where the main draw of Google. It's evident in comparison, that simplicity pioneered by Google, has been a significant principal in modern web design. While a lot has improved in the design of Google's image over time, mostly aiming towards simplicity, the essence of Google's design, remains unchanged.
- brlewis 14y ago
  Count the cute icons.
tptacek 14y ago
So my prodigious gut agreed strongly with you and I was all psyched up to write a snarky comment with Archive.org links to other, better-designed search engines --- because I remember simplicity being one of Google's hallmarks when they launched. But no, it turns out, 'thaumaturgy is right. Go look at Lycos and Altavista. It's hard to make a concise and compelling argument for Google's design being worse than its competitors. This was what professional web designs looked like in 1998.
- brlewis 14y ago
  One can claim Google's design was crude without claiming its design was worse than Lycos and Altavista. It's especially easy to claim one without the other when the whole argument is that design is not a competitive edge for search engines.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Sure. Then you should be able to go find the top sites in 1998, select somehow for the sites where design was a competitive edge, and find among them many examples of designs that are better in some way that is straightforward to explain. I gave up trying, for whatever that's worth. 1998 just looked crappy. Great year for indie rock! Neutral Milk Hotel! Bad year for web design.

No, actually that was a very crude looking page in 1998.

by pg 14y ago

No, actually that was a very crude looking page in 1998.

It was simple -- apocryphally because Larry or Sergei weren't familiar with HTML -- but I don't see what makes it crude compared to the competition at the time (http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in-the-90s-then-and-now/ http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/popular-search-engines-in...).

Arelius 14y ago
Exactly, the simplicity and clarity, as I recall, combined with page rank of course, where the main draw of Google. It's evident in comparison, that simplicity pioneered by Google, has been a significant principal in modern web design. While a lot has improved in the design of Google's image over time, mostly aiming towards simplicity, the essence of Google's design, remains unchanged.
brlewis 14y ago
Count the cute icons.

tptacek 14y ago

So my prodigious gut agreed strongly with you and I was all psyched up to write a snarky comment with Archive.org links to other, better-designed search engines --- because I remember simplicity being one of Google's hallmarks when they launched. But no, it turns out, 'thaumaturgy is right. Go look at Lycos and Altavista. It's hard to make a concise and compelling argument for Google's design being worse than its competitors. This was what professional web designs looked like in 1998.

brlewis 14y ago
One can claim Google's design was crude without claiming its design was worse than Lycos and Altavista. It's especially easy to claim one without the other when the whole argument is that design is not a competitive edge for search engines.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Sure. Then you should be able to go find the top sites in 1998, select somehow for the sites where design was a competitive edge, and find among them many examples of designs that are better in some way that is straightforward to explain. I gave up trying, for whatever that's worth. 1998 just looked crappy. Great year for indie rock! Neutral Milk Hotel! Bad year for web design.