

Am I getting too old for this (Google instant rant)? - shin_lao
http://www.bureau14.fr/blogea/index.php/2010/09/am-i-getting-too-old-for-this/

======
wccrawford
Maybe he -is- getting old. He's already forgotten that most computer-users
these days aren't the incredible touch-typists that most IT professionals are.

When people tap a single key at a time, having those instant results could
means minutes of time saved when searching for something, especially if they
don't really know what they are looking for.

Yes, as an IT professional, I find it useless. But I know many people who
would find it a blessing.

~~~
dkarl
I think you've got it backwards. You have to be old or an IT professional
(interested in usability) to care about people who don't type. Young people
regard the inability to type fast as one of those social problems that will
inevitably be solved by mortality, like racism (except they're probably right
about typing.) (How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school
papers in a word processor since sixth grade or earlier?)

~~~
Figs
"How could you not type fast if you've been writing your school papers in a
word processor since sixth grade or earlier?"

Carpal tunnel?

~~~
rudyfink
Judging from some of the articles I seen on-line the answer may, in part, be
plagiarism or more politely extensive copy and paste. That seems to simple of
an answer though.

------
dkarl
The young thrive while the old are overwhelmed because the young are more
successfully discriminating. I caught myself slowing down my typing and
pausing between words to give myself more time to scan the instant results. I
think that's the "old" reaction -- new technology slows you down.

I suspect the "young" reaction to Google Instant would be, "That flickery
thing Google does before it shows my results? I'm supposed to read that? I
don't have time for that. If I ever type that slow, just kill me, because I
don't ever want to be that old."

------
ezl
I don't understand why anyone complains about Google Instant.

It requires one less mouseclick. If you want to pretend you're using the old
Google, you can just close your eyes while you type, randomly click your
mouse, then open your eyes. You will have before you the same results that
original Google would have returned.

Unless you get confused by the "Instant" feedback along the way (like you
somehow get distracted by shiny other searches that Google recommends, forget
what you were originally searching for and get "tricked" into some new query),
it shouldn't be an issue.

~~~
barrkel
I don't understand how you use your mouse when using Google, other than to
select a search result? Normally I just press Return.

The problem with Instant is precisely the risk of distraction. It's the same
reason I don't use Suggest - and in fact, I now am forced to avoid
www.google.com completely, as there is now no easy way of disabling Suggest on
the web page. It used to be you could switch between Suggest and non-Suggest;
now, your only choices are between Suggest and Instant.

I'm sticking with the search box in the browser.

(Actually, there is a way to disable Suggest:
<http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0> ; but that's impractical except as a
bookmark or home page.)

~~~
Locke1689
I think he's suggesting using your mouse to select a result.

~~~
barrkel
I think he's suggesting clicking on the Search button, because there's no
difference in mouse clicks between Google Instant and old Google if you press
Enter upon entering your query.

------
tapp
I'm an "IT professional" and, worse, an _old_ IT professional (closing on 40.)

I strongly disliked the idea of instant search when it launched, but to my
surprise, I'm actually finding it very useful. I've been able to train myself
to avoid focusing on the results pane until I get deep into my query string
(3rd or 4th word.) That tends to be where I organically pause anyway, while
deciding whether I should tack on another word to my long-tail queries.

By that point in the query process, the noisy and wildly-irrelevant entries
have already been weeded out, and I can start focusing on the results pane.
Interestingly, on several occasions recently, I've seen a promising result
flicker past as I'm in the process of adding that 4th word to my query. When
I'm done typing, I see that none of the results are as good as the one that
flickered past when I had just 3 words in my query, so I delete the last word
and voila. Result that I might not have found without instant search.

I'm still not crazy about some of the larger implications (pushing most users
towards the same query strings, etc.) but am finding it surprisingly useful on
a personal level.

FWIW, YMMV, etc...

------
jinushaun
I'm constantly make WRONG searches now with Google Instant. Based on habit, I
type my searches quickly and hit enter. However, with Instant, the Auto
Complete isn't able to catch up and I end up selecting an outdated incorrect
SUGGESTED query instead of my ACTUAL search query.

Google Instant actually slows me down since I have to wait for the Auto
Complete to catch up.

~~~
kordless
Yup. I turned it off on all my machines.

------
jsz0
_Or is Google Instant just too nerdy?_

Isn't it really not nerdy enough? The auto-suggestions steer you towards
common search terms and editing your query for instant results is really only
practical on short imprecise searches. It seems to be a feature that exists
for people who aren't very good at searching.

------
ImperatorLunae
"Visual feedback gives you the illusion of speed, like a progress bar reduces
the impression of waiting, but that’s all it is: an illusion."

I read an article once about elevators (
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_paumgarten)
). It was spun-off the "man getting stuck in an elevator for 41 hours" story.

In the article, the writer cites a particular anecdote about an elevator
company installing faster elevators in a particular building. Patrons of the
building, however, complained that the elevators were now slower. The company
was confused--how was this possible? It turns out, the new elevators lacked
mirrors. People couldn't straighten their hair and pick their teeth while
standing in it, so the ride felt longer.

People perceive time in odd ways. Google's taking a stab at this perception;
the illusion of speed in the eyes of the user counts more than physical speed.
The user is the yard stick, not engineers with stopwatches.

The author here casts aside illusion like it's meaningless, but that's far
from the truth. Look at the Parthenon, whose columns are tapered to make it
look bigger, or magicians, who stun audiences with clever distraction. Casting
aside illusion is on par with casting aside mathematics; it may be difficult
to understand at times and require a large amount of labor to learn, but
neither can be avoided without losing some room to maneuver.

~~~
joshuacc
Agreed. The illusion of speed gets you some of the benefits of actual speed,
user satisfaction in particular.

------
michaelbuckbee
Google instant is really useful for the unsophisticated users typing URLs into
the search box instead of the address bar.

With Google instant, type the letter "f", you'll get Facebook.com as the first
link because that many people are searching for it on Google. For almost every
letter of the alphabet the first instant search term is a domain name.

------
onewland
I don't like this new thing. It is not similar to the old thing, which I do
like!

~~~
barrkel
And on the other hand, not all shiny new things are an improvement on the old.
For a company as allegedly fearful of opportunity cost as Google[1], we should
expect that well over 90% of the new stuff they do sucks more than their old
stuff.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895>

------
ww520
I actually don't have plus or minus feeling about Google Instant. I usually
typed pretty fast and the instant result won't come up before I finish typing.
Also I often use the browser's quick search on the address bar, which bypasses
Instant completely.

~~~
treeface
Not completely...you still land on the results page.

------
danbmil99
hah, I'm trying to turn it off but finding it is impossible. I save my
preferences but it's still there.

As Alex says in Clockwork Orange, "Me Glazzies! I can't close me glazzies!"

~~~
netaddict
Yes, Google stores this preference in Cookies (which is wierd). So if your
browser clears cookies on exit, 'instant' is again enabled by default.

