Googles New Look and Layout

D.W

Anyone got opinions on the new look and layout of Google search results unveiled in the past 24 hours?

stellarartois

The toolbar it does nothing!?Why oh Why?

Pacifico

Not a fan of the bar on the left hand side....

Thrill

Dislike it a lot. Especially that damned left-hand sidebar. Googles forums are full of people complaining about it. Theres already an addon to get rid of it.....

http://www.seotools.com/hide-google-options/index.htm

smemon

i think it's better myself...

people always hate change but if you step back and look at things from a 'first time user' perspective, your view will usually change...

it was the same with office 2007, same with facebook... people hate changes but imo the new layout makes it easier to carry out advanced / specific searches.

for example a custom date search... previously that was hassle but now it can be done from the results page...

it's also quicker to do advanced video / image searches... a lot of people won't have seen or heard of many of the advanced search features so they'll now experience them for the first time and that will probably help them find what they're looking for with more accuracy so that can only be a good thing...

Klingon Hamlet

FTW

stellarartois

Thrill wrote: »

Dislike it a lot. Especially that damned left-hand sidebar. Googles forums are full of people complaining about it. Theres already an addon to get rid of it.....

http://www.seotools.com/hide-google-options/index.htm

This add-on worked at first but now its back to that stupid toolbar on the lefthandside, whats goin on?

Thrill

It works on Google.com but not on Google.ie.

WebGeek

I can't stand it! Every day I'm using more and more of Bing!!

Huskora

I hate the new look of google, i hate the way you cannot just search just ireland results!! :P They messed it up big time!!

Huskora

Huskora wrote: »

I hate the new look of google, i hate the way you cannot just search just ireland results!! :P They messed it up big time!!

Eh yeah you can.

I think it's great...

ColmDawson

I wish they hadn't removed the feature that let you click the search term for its definition.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

It is moronic. The people who did it really haven't a clue about how people search. People want results and the old layout provided them. It was what differentiated Google from other search engines. The 'pages from $country' thing is also very important outside the US. It seems quite obvious that the people responsible aren't outside the US so don't have a clue about it. Moving it to the lefthand side toolbar is stupid.

As for this famed Google heatmap: rubbish! People read English from Left to Right. Their eyes only return to the left hand side when starting a new sentence. Their eyes may start on the left but they end on the right. Now when they are reading the SERPs, they will focus on the beginning of the SERPs on the left and will try hard to ignore the toolbar.

Regards...jmcc

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. It is still the same moronic design.

Regards...jmcc

Cookie33

dont like it, not as easy as the old way.. :mad:

Goodshape

Small changes, big improvement.

Results start right below and in-line with the search bar. Tidy.

I've been using the features in the new left side bar a lot more than I ever did before (for those that were there before). Switching between 'Everything', 'Updates', 'Discussions', etc. is fast and easy.

Pages from Ireland link is right there. What's the beef?

The timeline on the 'Updates' page is cool, and useful.

Only downside is the very annoying omission of the 'definition' links.


// Edit
I notice the definitions are gone from the old style page too -- http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=all. Presumably someone got annoyed that the big G were sending all their definition seekers to one place, not allowing for the competition to float to the top. A search for 'define: word' still brings back a definition.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

Goodshape wrote: »

Pages from Ireland link is right there. What's the beef?

It is not below the search box anymore. This is the problem. Great for USA but crap for those of us who are outside the USA and have their own ccTLD/country.

Regards...jmcc

Goodshape

Problem? Crap? It's right beside all the other links that filter the results. I can't think of anywhere I'd rather put it.

And 'Great for USA'... what, like Google are trying to hoodwink the rest of the world by 'hiding' the local listings button? Please.

The pages from $country button is a lot less important these days anyway. Google uses geo-location to bring you the best results. Ever try a search with geo-location disabled? Results are shockingly different. I can't remember the last time I've had to specify "from Ireland" in order to get Irish relevant results.


This fear of change is bizarre.

jmcc

Goodshape wrote: »

Problem? Crap? It's right beside all the other links that filter the results. I can't think of anywhere I'd rather put it.

Back where it was - right below the search box.

And 'Great for USA'... what, like Google are trying to hoodwink the rest of the world by 'hiding' the local listings button? Please.

It has all the marks of a US only design that is utterly clueless about the world outside of the USA.

The pages from $country button is a lot less important these days anyway. Google uses geo-location to bring you the best results.

All hail the great Google. Geo location is not precise and it is something that search engines still have problems with. Ireland is a good example due to the complexity of ISP IP mapping.

This fear of change is bizarre.

Breaking something that works is always the act of a moron.

Regards...jmcc

Goodshape

jmcc wrote: »

It has all the marks of a US only design that is utterly clueless about the world outside of the USA.

Because they moved a largely unused button (would be interested now to see click rates on that!) over to where all the other buttons are? I don't get it.

Geo location is not precise and it is something that search engines still have problems with.

Maybe. Has always worked well for me though. Search for something generic like bus timetable brings back Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus, CIE, RTE, etc. Not a hint of anything even remotely US related in the first two pages of results. All entirely Irish.

And if I really feel the need to filter those results a bit more... I go to the search options menu, where all the search options live.

Breaking something that works is always the act of a moron.

This works better. Search filters are much easier to get to and the whole thing looks cleaner and brighter.


Each to their own, though. You're fully entitled to be wrong if you so choose

jmcc

Goodshape wrote: »

This works better. Search filters are much easier to get to and the whole thing looks cleaner and brighter.


Each to their own, though. You're fully entitled to be wrong if you so choose

I am right - as are lots of others. Here's a simple explanation of why Google screwed up:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/05/06/im-not-sure-im-a-fan-of-googles-new-layout/

Regards...jmcc

Goodshape

Ah no, really. He's complaining about a search for 'trending items' returning real-time results. So basically, I can now use Google to search for info on breaking stories, and get back the latest up-to-the-second results. How is that not an improvement?

Interesting that the championed "Actual Results" he's got marked out in the 'Google's New Layout' search aren't nearly as relevant as the links above from news and 'Latest'. Again, an improvement.


Looking at the old layout... how do I get the netbook sales figures that might have been published in, say, the last 2 days? Or with fewer shopping links?

Also, the results area in the new screenshot isn't "shrunk". The horizontal space is the same, with less padding on the right, and there are actually more results listed in the new version (6 instead of 5 fully visible) as they start a little higher on the page.

jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

I am right - as are lots of others. Here's a simple explanation of why Google screwed up:

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/05/06/im-not-sure-im-a-fan-of-googles-new-layout/

Regards...jmcc

You're not right. Your opinion is your opinion and only that.

And your rant in your first post of this thread is just generalised garbage, misinformed and proves you don't actually know what you're talking about.

jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not right. Your opinion is your opinion and only that.

It is my opinion and I am right. I've seen more webpages and websites than you probably ever will see - from the absolutely dire to the best.

And your rant in your first post of this thread is just generalised garbage, misinformed and proves you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The problems with the Google interface are quite obvious to people who actually deal with interfaces and web design. What Google is trying to do is to provide a universal search and in doing so is breaking the elegant simplicity that people have associated with it. It is firing all results at the user in the hope that some of it will be relevant. Now perhaps to yourself and Goodshape, that's a good thing but it has the effect of overwhelming the user with options. That's a bad thing. Simple enough for you?

Regards...jmcc

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

It is my opinion and I am right. I've seen more webpages and websites than you probably ever will see - from the absolutely dire to the best.

The problems with the Google interface are quite obvious to people who actually deal with interfaces and web design. What Google is trying to do is to provide a universal search and in doing so is breaking the elegant simplicity that people have associated with it. It is firing all results at the user in the hope that some of it will be relevant. Now perhaps to yourself and Goodshape, that's a good thing but it has the effect of overwhelming the user with options. That's a bad thing. Simple enough for you?

Regards...jmcc

No your opinion does not make what you say right. I work with people who've seen/made more websites than you, their opinion doesn't make them right either. It's just their opinion. See how stupid your analogy is now? It doesn't make sense.

You're still talking complete and total horse crap too. It's only natural that as the web develops, search engines will too.

You couldn't possibly cram everything underneath the search bar, or if you could, they chose not to. And I agree with the changes.

Plus have you any facts/stats to back up how these changes are in fact overwhelming users with changes?

The bottom line is, Google have seen more web pages than you and I put together and fortunately, you're not leading them into the future so feel free to moan all you like.

Why don't you whine to Google? http://www.google.ie/quality_form?q=irish&hl=en&prmd=nlbiv

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

No your opinion does not make what you say right. I work with people who've seen/made more websites than you, their opinion doesn't make them right either.

Unless they work for one of the search engine companies in site discovery or crawler/robot development, I doubt it. There is a lot of people around, such as yourself, who think that they know what they are talking about but have only seen a tiny fragment of the web and often as an end user. Working with a few web designers who produce cookiecutter websites in Joomla or Wordpress is not quite the same as surveying websites in entire TLDs.

It's only natural that as the web develops, search engines will too.

The main objective of any search engine is to give the user the results that they want quickly. Google's attraction was that it had a simple and elegant interface that did just that.

You couldn't possibly cram everything underneath the search bar, or if you could, they chose not to. And I agree with the changes.

I'm sure that Google will be overjoyed at your august approval. The old interface did not cram everything under the search bar. It organised things better than the current one does. The new one is designed to be more sticky so that it keeps Google's advertising right in front of the user often at the expense, in attention terms, of the natural results.

Plus have you any facts/stats to back up how these changes are in fact overwhelming users with changes?

Short of counting the links and options on a new results page versus an old one?

The bottom line is, Google have seen more web pages than you and I put together

An appeal to authority? The irony, in search engine terms, is probably lost on you. Google's new interface has created an opportunity for others but then I'm sure that as an entrepreneur, you would have realised that.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It will be interesting to see the opinions.

Regards...jmcc

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

WebGeek

Actually I think I'm finally liking the new format more and more. The left sidebar is handy once you get used to it

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

tomED

Hmmm... I just jumped into this thread after commenting on the poll.

My god, didn't we all get a little touchy!?!

For me it's quite clear why Google designed the page like this. They have some great search features that people simply weren't using (or enough people should I say!). Search has evolved and it's Google's way of putting the power into the every day users hands. The simple fact is, that something had to change to give us all greater flexibility when we are searching.

Does it make it worse for the user? I would have to say most definitely not. In fact I'd even say it's better for the user, simply because of easy access to key functionality.

Yes there is one thing that annoys me a lot and that's the "pages from Ireland". To access these results now takes two clicks as opposed to one in the past. But I can live with that, because I no longer have to click "show options" which is something I use on a regular basis.

From a user perspective, people are always going to disagree because some people like using Google for different reasons. From a UX designers point of view, Google have stuck to the theory book as much as possible.

It's really not worth fighting over though is it? :P

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

tomED

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok the problem is that with the old design you simply entered a search term, clicked the pages from Ireland radio button and got your results.

With the new version, you need to perform a search and then filter them with the "pages from Ireland" link.

To be honest, it's no biggie, just a little annoying.

It now takes me about 0.00002 of a second to remember to stop looking for it under the search bar!

tricky D

The redesign does have its problems.

Firstly, Google's main product is the search results. The old design had them displayed with nothing to the left meaning the beginning of each line was easy for the eye to catch the left hand edge. The options positioned in that space has undermined that ease. The left hand space also has somewhat confused the tabindexing with the left hand coming last in the order.

Secondly, the logical place for the options is somewhere before the search box. Reading left to right and top to bottom, as we do, users set the options and then perform the search. They could put all the options above the search box using dropdowns which they already use in that space. The user path here is down a bit, down another bit, execute as opposed to down to the left and then back up and execute. (This would also 'fix' the tabindexing order.) However, that still means there's 2 clicks as tomED points out. Google could allow some limited customisation by letting users choose a few options to be displayed on the page, as opposed to requiring an extra click into the dropdown. A bit like the ability to customise your BBC homepage.

Personally, one thing that has always perplexed me is the damned awfulness of Google's markup, especially considering the simplicity of their pages. Google ain't so perfect afterall!

tomED

tricky D wrote: »

Firstly, Google's main product is the search results. The old design had them displayed with nothing to the left meaning the beginning of each line was easy for the eye to catch the left hand edge. The options positioned in that space has undermined that ease.

Agreed, however the changes they have made allows you to filter the results and make the experience (and possibly the results) better. Therefore I would say it's a good compromise.

tricky D wrote: »

Secondly, the logical place for the options is somewhere before the search box. Reading left to right and top to bottom, as we do, users set the options and then perform the search. They could put all the options above the search box using dropdowns which they already use in that space. The user path here is down a bit, down another bit, execute as opposed to down to the left and then back up and execute.

Sorry Tricky I have to disagree with you on this one.

As some that constantly used the filerting options, I wouldn't have wanted to have to specify what I wanted from the outset. The reality is that I only ever use those filtering options if I needed to perform a more specific search (which is quite a lot!! ).

For example, if I performed a search, I would generally trust the first few results Google offered me. It would only be if I felt that the results were not specific enough that I would use the extra options. So I would be happy to click the options on the left handside.

For me, the filtering options are most powerful when I'm not finding exactly what I'm looking for. They're not something I would want to use all the time for generic searches such as "latest premiershop scores" etc. That's because those type of searched generally give you what you want without filtering.

tricky D wrote: »

Personally, one thing that has always perplexed me is the damned awfulness of Google's markup, especially considering the simplicity of their pages.

I'm going to avoid respondong to this point entirely! That could really open up another can of worms :P

tricky D wrote: »

Google ain't so perfect afterall!

I think this is one point that everyone should note.

A lot of people assume Google is the "Internet". It's as if Google themselves created it.

People forget that Google is only around since 97/98ish and there are plenty of people on this here forum that are around longer than that!

Yes Google deserve a lot of credit, but they are by no means the be all and end all and they certainly aint perfect!

tricky D

tomED wrote: »

Sorry Tricky I have to disagree with you on this one.

As some that constantly used the filerting options, I wouldn't have wanted to have to specify what I wanted from the outset. The reality is that I only ever use those filtering options if I needed to perform a more specific search (which is quite a lot!! ).

For example, if I performed a search, I would generally trust the first few results Google offered me. It would only be if I felt that the results were not specific enough that I would use the extra options. So I would be happy to click the options on the left handside.

For me, the filtering options are most powerful when I'm not finding exactly what I'm looking for. They're not something I would want to use all the time for generic searches such as "latest premiershop scores" etc. That's because those type of searched generally give you what you want without filtering.

Oops, my bad. Mixing up the before and after a bit. Should really have said between the search box and the results.

jmcc

tomED wrote: »

My god, didn't we all get a little touchy!?!

I tend to get a bit picky after checking over quarter of a million Irish domains and websites and trying to make sense of the Irish webspace. I can see why (literally) there are so many opportunities for SEO on Irish websites.

For me it's quite clear why Google designed the page like this. They have some great search features that people simply weren't using (or enough people should I say!). Search has evolved and it's Google's way of putting the power into the every day users hands. The simple fact is, that something had to change to give us all greater flexibility when we are searching.

It still looks like Google is moving towards a universal search without getting it quite right. The emphasis is, I think, purely financial in that it is meant to focus user attention on the advertising. Some of the other kinds of search were not used but that may have been down to user choice. This integrated, universal search is particularly dangerous in this regard.

Yes there is one thing that annoys me a lot and that's the "pages from Ireland". To access these results now takes two clicks as opposed to one in the past. But I can live with that, because I no longer have to click "show options" which is something I use on a regular basis.

Google's geolocation, like that of most search engines, is not precise. It is a combination of IP based discovery, domain name (.ie) grouping and some semantics. However a percentage of Irish websites are hosted outside of Irish IP space and on gTLD domain names so Google is left with its analysis of a website's audience, WHOIS data (where it uses it) and site content. People have come to rely on the 'pages from $country' button and moving it from beneath the search box (right centre of the user's focus) to the left hand toolbar is a very stupid move.

It's really not worth fighting over though is it? :P

No. But it will be very interesting to see what the other search engines make of this. Bing has been ramping up over the last year or so and it has been working hard on developing its product. Ask.com is getting back into the market too. In terms of market share Google would probably have 85-90% of the Irish market. Yahoo's share is a legacy share. Will Bing take advantage and start pushing its cleaner SERPs?

Regards...jmcc

Goodshape

jmcc wrote: »

But it will be very interesting to see what the other search engines make of this.

Bing already have their options on a right hand sidebar . They're just not as useful as Google's options.

Do you work in SEO, jmcc? Maybe concerned that Google's new features are making your efforts [even more] redundant by sourcing relevancy from real-time updates and certified news sources?

Wondering why the abundance of love for 'cleaner SERPs' and 'organic listings' when for me, as a user, I often get very *relevant* results from these new real-time, etc, listings.

tomED

jmcc wrote: »

I tend to get a bit picky after checking over quarter of a million Irish domains and websites and trying to make sense of the Irish webspace. I can see why (literally) there are so many opportunities for SEO on Irish websites.

Well you should really take a break from looking at all those sites then, life is too short! :P

jmcc wrote: »

It still looks like Google is moving towards a universal search without getting it quite right. The emphasis is, I think, purely financial in that it is meant to focus user attention on the advertising. Some of the other kinds of search were not used but that may have been down to user choice. This integrated, universal search is particularly dangerous in this regard.

I don't really get what you are getting at here when you say universal search but it's no surprise that Google are thinking about how to improve their monetisation opportunities. Wouldn't you if 97% of your turnover was based on advertisements? Especially when spending habits appear to be going the downward route.

I think it's really unfair to think that all their decisions were based entirely on financial factors. If the financial guys had their way, I'm sure the whole site would be an advert!!

So if their changes have made the ads stand out a little more, so be it - to the joe soap it looks like they've a load of new features thrown in to boot!

jmcc wrote: »

Google's geolocation, like that of most search engines, is not precise. It is a combination of IP based discovery, domain name (.ie) grouping and some semantics. However a percentage of Irish websites are hosted outside of Irish IP space and on gTLD domain names so Google is left with its analysis of a website's audience, WHOIS data (where it uses it) and site content. People have come to rely on the 'pages from $country' button and moving it from beneath the search box (right centre of the user's focus) to the left hand toolbar is a very stupid move.

Yes most people that work in this industry know this - but that doesn't make the "pages from Ireland" a bad feature. Right it's not 100% accurate but it does a job that I'm certainly happy with.

Oh and I agree moving the button is a pain - but I wouldn't say a stupid move. Some small studies shown recently suggest the % of use is quite small.

jmcc wrote: »

No. But it will be very interesting to see what the other search engines make of this. Bing has been ramping up over the last year or so and it has been working hard on developing its product. Ask.com is getting back into the market too. In terms of market share Google would probably have 85-90% of the Irish market. Yahoo's share is a legacy share. Will Bing take advantage and start pushing its cleaner SERPs?

I can't see the changes Google have made affecting their visitor numbers at all. In fact many people have started using Bing because of the usability features it brought to the table - Google have done something very similar to Bing.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that will stop people from using Google is bad SERPs or someone else providing better SERPs.

jmcc

tomED wrote: »

Well you should really take a break from looking at all those sites then, life is too short! :P

Yep. One "Welcome To The Frontpage" Joomla site is too many.

I don't really get what you are getting at here when you say universal search

Integrating as many kinds of search (geographical, blog, news etc) as possible in the hope the user will find some of it interesting.

but it's no surprise that Google are thinking about how to improve their monetisation opportunities. Wouldn't you if 97% of your turnover was based on advertisements? Especially when spending habits appear to be going the downward route.

Well it is a business and the "do no evil" thing has been left behind.

I think it's really unfair to think that all their decisions were based entirely on financial factors. If the financial guys had their way, I'm sure the whole site would be an advert!!

Not all their decisions but this does go some way towards more effectively monetising their SERPs and trying to increase user time on site.

Yes most people that work in this industry know this - but that doesn't make the "pages from Ireland" a bad feature. Right it's not 100% accurate but it does a job that I'm certainly happy with.

It is one of the better ones covering the Irish webspace. I use it constantly when searching.

Oh and I agree moving the button is a pain - but I wouldn't say a stupid move. Some small studies shown recently suggest the % of use is quite small.

Its use may be linked to the proficiency of the user - the casual user may not even bother as they search, get the result and leave.

I can't see the changes Google have made affecting their visitor numbers at all. In fact many people have started using Bing because of the usability features it brought to the table - Google have done something very similar to Bing.

Perhaps Bing is now using the sparse SERPs design that Google used to use. The quality of its results is still patchy.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that will stop people from using Google is bad SERPs or someone else providing better SERPs.

Google's biggest nightmare. To date, Cuil, Bing and the others have not managed to do that.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

I am talking total sh*t

I cleared that up for you jmcc because you really can talk garbage.

No point discussing one persons opinions against the other for this long because time just gets wasted.

Google isn't perfect (ever tried contacting a Google rep? Regardless of spend, they are still slow) - but one thing that is for sure, the poll so far proves you're in the minority when it comes to users being "overwhelmed" so you may as well create a few dozen profiles and vote to get your point across because I'm not listening to you.

jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

No point discussing one persons opinions against the other for this long because time just gets wasted.

Merely working with a few web designers who have built a few sites does not mean that you know anything about building sites or indeed have seen all the websites they have seen.

Regards...jmcc

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

jmcc

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's this wonderful search engine that may be worth checking. If you can't be bothered Googling for them, then just scroll back up the thread. Some people posting here do know about SEO and Search and I have a lot of respect for the expertise and their opinions.

Regards...jmcc

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

I cleared that up for you jmcc because you really can talk garbage.

No point discussing one persons opinions against the other for this long because time just gets wasted.

Google isn't perfect (ever tried contacting a Google rep? Regardless of spend, they are still slow) - but one thing that is for sure, the poll so far proves you're in the minority when it comes to users being "overwhelmed" so you may as well create a few dozen profiles and vote to get your point across because I'm not listening to you.

Mod Warning
Give it a rest. Misquoting someone is trolling and getting personal.

Attack the post and not the poster.

Sully

Mod Warning
Condi: I see that as a cheap dig btw. Remove it, or you will be removed.

Final warning folks. Stop acting like kids and grow up. If you cant agree, just agree to disagree and stop leveling to childish behavior. You attack the post and not the poster.

I am shocked at the childish behavior from some users in this topic and the next person who ignores a mod warning will be given a lengthy break from this forum.

Consider yourselves lucky I have not already given bans for bullying.