Comments on: Is Google's user interface outdated?

Silicon Valley executives say Google isn't doing enough to innovate on its search results pages, especially in an era of near-ubiquitous broadband.

[john55440]

Broadband

"era of near-ubiquitous broadband"

In the US, that era isn't here yet.

[suyts]

Yes, but

very soon.

[ss_Whiplash]

Missing the point

Simplicity and speed is the beauty of Google. It's not just easy on the network, it's easy on the eyes and brain. Look at other popular sites like Craigslist and Wikipedia, they follow the same stripped down philosophy and that's what makes them attractive.

[gregorytga]

Agreed

Agreed, a few years back there was someone ridiculing price
search engines for being too simplistic (IE, type in product, find
best deal) suggesting that we could make it more interactive like
you have to shoot the best prices like "doom". Another high level
analyst without fundamental grasp of inevitable ease of use.

While searchme may be pretty, but for a good deal of broadband
users, the point of broadband was to speed up the current
internet they're familiar, not find new ways to slow it down.
There's be a general rejection for too much pizazz, as cited by
Wiplahs, minimalism is in because it works. Unless searchme is
fast, provides somehow better results, scriptable and all the
things power users and common users demand.... as well as
performance friendly for those with older PCs, its a niche
market.

[krosavcheg]

totally agree!

their UI is purely functional, and their performance is phenomenal - i'll take fast, accurate searches over any glitzy crap anyday.

[brass2themax]

Also agreed

Google knows what most computer-literate, well-informed people of the IT world want: NOT flashy colours and fancy effects when it comes to simply searching for websites, but speed and simplicity in finding those said websites.

I could care less about what Google looks like (in terms of its simplicity), because when I find the site I was looking for, I GO THERE, hence, navigate away from Google because it's done the job I needed it to do. And it takes only a second or two (or should, I should say).

Google is there to 1) Search quickly, and 2) Provide you with the link/address of the page you were looking for (or similar pages), then the rest is up to you and Google says goodbye until next time you need to find something.

Flashy pages are for places where you hang around. I use Google for a few seconds before navigating away to the page I wanted. Why bother having it load forever?

[Penguinisto]

Exactly.

If I want crap scripts, flash adverts, and screen-clogging formats, I'd go use MSN or Yahoo.

/P

[jrm125]

I totally agree!

YES!

That is what keeps me coming back to those pages. Regardless of internet/computer speed, simplicity and near instantaneous loading are very attractive. Who needs a million colors and things all over the place? Just give me what I want when I need it.

[Vegaman_Dan]

KISS

There's a reason why people like this text-friendly search engine.

It just works.

Yes, Yahoo Search, MSN Search, Ask.com- all those can yield the same results, but bury it in a barrage of ads, graphics, and other distracting things on the screen. It only takes one badly crafted applet or graphic element to hang a browser and render the site's results useless.

If Google chooses to go this route, then many people including myself will choose then to go elsewhere, losing those valuable page views.

[tekwiz4u]

Why change if its not broken?

I've been using Google for years, and I always liked its simplistic interface. They can improve on the search engine, but keep the interface the way it is. I've tried others like Ask.com, Live, but always gonbe back to Google. I dont need flash and pizazz, just need straight forward RESULTS!!

[ghostofitpast]

Addiction of the worst kind

The answer to the "Why change" question is that there are too many "players" in Silicon Valley who are so addicted to innovation that they would prefer something "new and cool" to something that not only works but works really well! Mucking around with effective technology for the sake of innovation may be the first step towards the undoing of the VC community (in Silicon Valley if not in general). (The other possibility is that this is some sort of conspiracy to undermine Google!)

[gefitz]

Yes. What we all need is more Flash.

People LOVE Flash. Make users have to sit through entire Flash adverts before the search results come up. And maybe Google should add all kinds of Java-based pull-down menus.

Why does Google dominate the realm of search? 1) Accuracy/relevancy
2) the fact that it doesn't bog down users in buckets of useless animation/Adobe-mess/and other garbage that (believe it or not) annoy the hell out of users.

Let's hope the uppity-ups at Google are smart enough to realize that, and ignore vent-caps that spout this garbage.

[Anon-Y-mous]

Flash is the cause of MOST browser crashes

I have Flash turned off, and only manually enable it if I am forced to visit a web site that offers no other means of use other than through flash.

The frequency of browser crashes has gone from about once every 2 days to once every month.

Nice product, Adobe... NOT

So help me if I'm forced to "run" add ins just to search text on the web.

[Imalittleteapot]

I remember.

I remember when Yahoo's interface was simpler. I also remember when it got real complicated and slow to load. Then Google came along with a simpler interface than Yahoo was currently using and decimated Yahoo.

I saw the searchme video. Compiz has a similar effect, but the text gets blurred in background windows. For Desktop windows that's ok because I already know what I got open.

However, when searching web results I'm searching for text in its context. I don't care what the website looks like when I'm searching for information. Some of the most interesting websites have the worst looks.

I'm trying to get an overview of ten or twenty sites at a time. If the visual effects blur the text to where I can only see the text on the object that has focus I'll have to tab through each one. That could get annoying The trick in this is really how crisp they can keep the text from what I saw in the video.

[upsmanclt]

Is Google's User Interface Outdated?

NO!

[unknown unknown]

As oppose to what?

The clutter of sites like Yahoo and MSN?
SearchMe is a contrived gimmick and nothing more.

[MRMOAV]

coverflow?

Looks a lot like Apple's coverflow. So, did Apple steal this from
these guys?

Ok, so instead of typing in my search and then clicking once this
great company made searching for something even more difficult.

[JohnLudlow]

Not so much the interface...

As the actual search capabilities. A few years ago the search world took a backward step. Remember boolean searches? I used them all the time, but most search engines don't allow them anymore.

I think this was in response to the fact that more non-IT people were using the web, and engines wanted to make the experience simpler, but to completely take away the ability...

That's why I sometimes turn to Exalead, which does allow boolean searches (on the advanced section).

I'm not sure that some spinning 3D tree of results will help me much when I'm trawling the web.

[The_Decider]

What search engine doesn't use boolean searches?

Without boolean operators search would be impossible.

Type in boolean operators in google. It is searching boolean AND operators by default.

[businesscontacts]

Having a speedy interface is Google's best weapon

You can never have too much memory, hard disk space or cpu speed. The same goes for bandwith. The faster the page load, the best, and Google's speedy interface is the best weapon they have.

[Daniel Har]

Google's UI

Google's simplistic and minimalistic interface is what made it number 1 search engine. Should the interface change, would Google's standing change?

While I agree that the speed and relevance of search results are what's driving it, I would like to see its interface evolve by better integration with Google Aps. Say, you are working on a Google document, maybe you can include a search function within the document. Or a spreadsheet that gets results from the web. Eventually, we would not have to go to google.com to search for something, only when necessary. It'd be embedded directly in documents.

Google then would be the backend of universal applications, from search, to daily mundane office stuff to healthcare. That's the ultimate UI I'd like to eventually see Google evolve to.

[tgrenier]

few comments

I love Google but standing still may not be the best thing. Someone will eventually knock them off the top of the search pile just like they did to Yahoo.

I don't know why but it seems the longer a search engine is around the less relevant its search results become. Altavista.digital.com was just as good, if not better than google way back when but it started to slip in relevance.

MSN, Yahoo, Netscape, Live etc are portals that happen to have a search function along wth news, chat and all that other portal stuff. Some may find it useful, I don't. i do most of my searching from Google's tool bar.

I don't exactly know what the answer is but I do agree with the pundits that there is room for imporvement in displaying search resluts. The web is becomming less and less text based and text results will not be king forever.

At the risk of being way to geeky, I wil point out the search engine on the SS Enterprise is all voice based and does not ask you to choose which resluts you would like to see. It just gets them right.

I am always looking forward to the next great thing, and laughing at all the not so great things that come in between. I also try not to bash things I have not sene or used yet.

[The_Decider]

Improving search is one thing

"Improving" an almost flawless UI is something different entirely.

Google needs to spend more time improving its search, but that is completely different then changing a UI just so it can be "modern".

[The_Decider]

For those that want unrelated crap in their search engine index page

www.google.com/ig

It will give you a few extras, without massive clutter that Yahoo chokes you with.

[Penguinisto]

Answer: Hell, No.

When I hit a search engine, I want only one thing: results that are relevant. Anything else is mere fluff and crap that gets in the way.

I'd much rather have a simple and usable list of results, than a screen-clogging pile of scripts that pop up windows, blink and flash "features", plow in a ton of visual adverts, and in general make the damned thing useless and distracting (see also Yahoo, Ask, and MSN).

Google got on top and remains there because it is simple, unobtrusive, and relevant. Yahoo, MSFT, Ask, and the like will never get there until/unless they can bring themselves to do the same thing.

/P

[Vegaman_Dan]

Turning customers against you

Generally when I visit a website that I like a lot, a local news station, they have a lot of popup ads and inteceptor ads you have to click through to get to the story itself. I've written to them to complain and they responded that it was the way they make their money.

I let them know that the only thing their obnoxious ads getting in the way of the news was accomplishing was me making a note of the advertiser in question and *never* doing business with them again. There. Lost a customer as a result.

I use another news station website instead that doesn't do that at all and while the news isn't quite as in depth, the overall user experience is much more enjoyable and I'm willing to look at those sidebar ads if they interest me.

It's two approaches. One is offensive and obstructionary, the other is passive and more likely to get my business.

[darhsiung]

Google can improve

There's lots of room for Google to improve. On contextual optimization, they handle less than 1% of the keywords.

See: (http://adecon101.blogspot.com/2008/03/analysis-google-search-or-internet.html)

-Dash Chang
The New Economics of Advertising
(http://adEcon101.blogspot.com)

[suyts]

Google has started to limit

what results they give you based on the PC of one's purposed leanings. They won't link your site if it may be offensive to someone, or if the wording of your link isn't proper to someone else's sensibilities. The UI is fine, their criteria is what is going to hurt them in the end.

[sachxn]

still google...

Still Google is no.1 and these people will not be able to beat it, cause they don't know what google is planning to launch this year.

Sachin

[mkaz91]

On some things, yes (Gmail)

I normally use Windows Live's Hotmail for E-Mail. I signed up for a GMail account and found the UI confusing, cluttered, and unsightly compared to Hotmail's more streamlined interface.
Google needs to work on that.
(I use the full version of Hotmail, not the classic)