3 ms·

Everyone is dissing Google here. Perhaps understandably so since most folks in HN are advanced users and an advanced search feature was removed. Google is driv

by valas 13y ago

Everyone is dissing Google here. Perhaps understandably so since most folks in HN are advanced users and an advanced search feature was removed. Google is driven by data and sorry but advanced users are a mere blip in that data. I can bet there was a gazilion user studies that showed that your grandma was super confused when 10 options would pop up when she pressed 'More'. The same studies showed that she was much less so confused when 4 options were presented, increasing engine usability for her. My point here is that some folks attribute sinister motives (more search dollars), while the actual motive is just to make the interface usable for more people. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, not in search though.)

ksk 13y ago
I don't get your point. Is it that people should not complain about Google removing a feature they like, because you have presented a guess as to why they removed it? (FWIW - I agree with you that it was not maliciously removed) Personally I like it when users complain loudly about decisions that impact them. The idea of negative publicity might deter such actions in the future (in theory anyway).
- vinkelhake 13y ago
  The point is in the third paragraph. A lot of comments here conclude that the motives for doing this are sinister. One person even thinks it was removed because it would make users spend hours reading discussions when that time should really be spent shopping. People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/
  - ksk 13y ago
    >People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone. We're in violent agreement !
  - exodust 13y ago
    The old saying "every change will upset someone/can't please 'em all chuckle chuckle" is a cop-out. I've had managers say exactly this about flawed interfaces I've been asked to build, with marketing directives dictating crucial layout choices and ultimately problematic usability. Warned against but overridden with "can't please em all". Yet the complaints came rolling in big time over an extended period due these change to the tv guide I made. The problem with marketing depts making interface decisions is that their priorities are with things like "aligning with the tone of the campaign" or "blatantly copying a competitor for lack of confidence in one's own original ideas". We're talking about a feature that has been in Google search for many years, then suddenly gone in the blink of an eye, without explanation. "Sinister" actions are done quietly, you hope no-one will notice. If their reasons are in the interests of users, they'd blog or post about it somewhere to keep people informed about their product. They failed to mention it. Google has already made it clear they are directing traffic to G+ to sustain their bank balance and pursuit of making a Google spacecraft or whatever. This latest move, plundering useful things in search, is the same bad User Interface behaviour as forcing people to sign up to G+ to leave a rating out of five for an app. They're forcing together two unrelated systems or services with bad welds, or removing useful components leaving empty space.

by valas 13y ago

ksk 13y ago

I don't get your point. Is it that people should not complain about Google removing a feature they like, because you have presented a guess as to why they removed it? (FWIW - I agree with you that it was not maliciously removed) Personally I like it when users complain loudly about decisions that impact them. The idea of negative publicity might deter such actions in the future (in theory anyway).

vinkelhake 13y ago
The point is in the third paragraph. A lot of comments here conclude that the motives for doing this are sinister. One person even thinks it was removed because it would make users spend hours reading discussions when that time should really be spent shopping. People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone. http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/
- ksk 13y ago
  >People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively. People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's, every change is going to upset someone. We're in violent agreement !
- exodust 13y ago
  The old saying "every change will upset someone/can't please 'em all chuckle chuckle" is a cop-out. I've had managers say exactly this about flawed interfaces I've been asked to build, with marketing directives dictating crucial layout choices and ultimately problematic usability. Warned against but overridden with "can't please em all". Yet the complaints came rolling in big time over an extended period due these change to the tv guide I made. The problem with marketing depts making interface decisions is that their priorities are with things like "aligning with the tone of the campaign" or "blatantly copying a competitor for lack of confidence in one's own original ideas". We're talking about a feature that has been in Google search for many years, then suddenly gone in the blink of an eye, without explanation. "Sinister" actions are done quietly, you hope no-one will notice. If their reasons are in the interests of users, they'd blog or post about it somewhere to keep people informed about their product. They failed to mention it. Google has already made it clear they are directing traffic to G+ to sustain their bank balance and pursuit of making a Google spacecraft or whatever. This latest move, plundering useful things in search, is the same bad User Interface behaviour as forcing people to sign up to G+ to leave a rating out of five for an app. They're forcing together two unrelated systems or services with bad welds, or removing useful components leaving empty space.