

'Remove Google Background' surges to number 2 in Google Trends - d2viant
http://www.google.com/trends

======
lmkg
I have a bit of a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory as to why Google is copying
Bing in several respects recently. From a game-theoretic perspective, it is to
Google's advantage for the search industry to be as homogeneous as possible,
because they're the incumbent.

As long as there's a difference between the major search engines, there's at
least some sort of reason to go with one of the minor engines, for some
fraction of people, some fraction of the time. If all the search engines are
the same, Google wins because no one has a reason to switch and Google has the
advantage of inertia. It is possible that it's better for Google to be
identical to Bing rather than superior to Bing, especially depending on how
situational or subjective that "superior" happens to be.

While I'm not a huge fan of Google, I don't think they would intentionally
have a dick-ish strategy like that. However, I do think that their test-driven
nature could push them in this direction anyways even if they don't intend to.
Every time they try a feature and people don't like it, they can switch to
Bing and Google gets the feedback... unless it's a clone of a Bing feature, in
which case people can't really switch. So bad ideas that are clones of Bing
features have a statistical advantage.

This is not to say that cloning Bing features is always a bad thing. I
actually prefer Bing. I'm just saying that clones of Bing features have a
statistical advantage during testing, regardless of how good they are in an
absolute sense.

The solution, obviously, is Duck Duck Go. Or, more generally, if the search
landscape is less of a duopoly, this phenomenon wouldn't exist as much.

~~~
kyro
No, the solution isn't that obvious. Even with recent changes, regardless of
who's copying who, I still much prefer Google to DDG. The layout makes it easy
to traverse more results more quickly, and the typography and colors are a lot
more crisp, among other things. All this DDG talk is getting tiring.

~~~
wgj
It's not tiring for people who want to analyze where other companies are doing
well or poorly. An independent willing to take on the execution challenges of
a generalized search engine is truly rare anymore. What others good examples
are there to watch besides DDG?

~~~
kyro
One-liners claiming that DDG is the clear alternative and solution are hardly
analysis.

~~~
wgj
I have a lot of respect for Gabriel. If I'm able to say that in one line, then
so be it.

Edit:

lmkg's comment didn't say everyone should use DDG for all search needs. It
pointed out the value of independent alternatives. One liner or not, it's
valid and relevant. DDG is valuable to the discussion because it specifically
attempts to innovate rather than copycat the status quo.

~~~
nostrademons
I have a lot of respect for Gabriel too, but that's different from saying that
DDG is the answer to all your search needs.

~~~
lmkg
Wgj is correct, and I meant the DDG comment to be tongue-in-cheek. I think
that became less clear because I segued into a serious point, sorry for the
confusion. My point was only that a third search engine means that Google
homogenizing the search industry isn't a good strategy anymore. DDG does that
merely be existing, outside of anything else it does to differentiate itself
(or rather, it would if it had more market share).

------
edw519
When they moved the "Advanced Search" button below the fold on the Advanced
Search page, I sighed and scrolled down.

When they made the links at the top invisible until your mouse moved, I sighed
and moved my mouse.

But now that Google looks like Bing, I just sigh.

~~~
periferral
frankly, its worse than bing. the page readability is miserable. Still moving
the mouse to see the page load is my biggest gripe yet. That combined with the
fact that it loses the search keyboards sometimes when I hit the back button
(on firefox).

~~~
to_jon
Agreed, it's hardly readable and a terrible implementation. Hard to believe
that Google could be so inept at a simple UI enhancement.

------
blhack
I think a lot of people are missing the brilliance of this.

They're making it _intentionally_ bad. For instance, I set a very cute picture
of my niece as my google background...but it takes about an extra second to
load the page now, so I removed it.

If anybody starts thinking about switching to bing, they're going to see the
pictures, remember how much it sucked on google, and go back to the "good"
google.

It's coke classic.

~~~
moultano
>but it takes about an extra second to load the page now, so I removed it

You can search before the picture loads.

~~~
oscardelben
Yes, but our brain likes to wait for something to complete, especially if it
takes less than 3 seconds.

~~~
_delirium
On the web especially, I've been conditioned not to start typing into boxes
until the page fully finishes loading, because onload js stuff often
repositions the cursor, which is annoying to have happen in the middle of
typing something.

------
patio11
Free linkbait idea: somebody should make a few mockups of Google taking
"design inspiration" from iconic elements of other famous brands. Google
redone in wall-to-wall Coke Red with a cursive logo. Google with the O's
replaced by the Obama logo and a stylized flag background. Google over a
silohuette of a twenty-something typical along on a keyboard with stylish
headphones on.

You could title this All Of These Are Better Ideas Than Taking Design
Direction From Microsoft. (I say this purely for branding -- I kind of like
the Bing look myself.)

~~~
fragmede
Oh good, a sponsored Google homepage. Today's search, brought to you by AT&T.
<Cue interstitial ad between search and results>

~~~
raintrees
Followed by "We're sorry - Our sponsor no longer wishes BitTorrent results to
appear in this listing." (Or insert latest large ISP whipping target here).

~~~
jrockway
Wow. If the real world isn't depressing enough, start talking about a random
idea in your head as though it's fact.

~~~
fragmede
That cuts both ways though.

-Sent from my fold-able 24" touchscreen running Android with 4G and an always-on 3-year battery.

~~~
jrockway
Good science fiction is supposed to be believable.

Time travel? I'll buy that. A 3-year battery? Hahahahaha.

~~~
scythe
You mean like the kind that already exist?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery>

~~~
jrockway
I was trying to make a joke ;) Next time, I will include a picture of a cat
with a caption :)

------
thesethings
I have a theory:

I don't think their backgrounds are a response to Bing at all.

Somebody high up at Google (won't name any names) is a sincere, enthusiastic
patron of the arts, and wants to share the gift of art with the world.

(I love art, but I think this mission is misguided, and wrong place, wrong
time.)

Google has had TONS of novelty background/skin campaigns for iGoogle, Chrome,
and other properties. (Often including prominent artists and designers.)

The home page is just the most recent victim.

The problem is not about quality of the art, which is usually great. It's just
about it serving the user/tool, which it doesn't.

I do like the holiday/themed Google logos (pacman anybody?). But I consider
those a completely different initiative.

Anyway... I repeat: It's not a Bing thing. It's a bring-art-to-the-masses
thing. :/

~~~
disturbances
Nah, this is pretty clearly a response to Bing. In fact, I've always suspected
that the pretty images on Bing's homepage are a significant part of it's
growing success. Most people just don't associate with Google's clean,
academic approach to design.

~~~
quomopete
I think it's moreso that some users haven't signed up for a google account
(there must(!) be some) because they only use the search function and that's
it. Well the background will jar them out of their complacency. When they go
to change it, they'll need to sign in...serving up thousands of new google
account users.

~~~
batiudrami
This doesn't make any sense. If all these users do is search, there's no
benefit in them having a Google account. Sure there's saved search
functionality, the data from which can be sold to advertisers, but Google
already tracks searches in cookies anyway.

If this were the goal, it would just alienate users with the background, and
inconveniencing them with a forced signup for next-to-no return.

------
smackfu
The bizarre thing is that the help page says:

"You can remove your background image at any time by clicking Remove
background image in the bottom left corner of the homepage."

But that just reverts it the default image, not the old white.

Edit: Actually it looks like the forced background is just temporary, for 24
hours, according to the Google Blog post:
<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/art-of-homepage.html>

~~~
rottencupcakes
You can get to something more sane by using the Google Pacman. Amazingly, it
loads faster than the image.

<http://www.google.com/pacman/>

~~~
brianobush
I just wasted time on that page - thanks. Now I see where everyone's time went
on the day that was on the google homepage (which I missed).

------
teoruiz
From their blog: <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/art-of-homepage.html>

Update June 10, 11:31AM: Last week, we launched the ability to set an image
ofusers’ choosing as the background for the Google homepage. Today, we ran a
special “doodle” that showcased this functionality by featuring a series
ofimages as the background for our homepage. We had planned to run an
explanationof the showcase alongside it—in the form of a link on our homepage.
_Due to a bug_ , the explanatory link did not appear for most users. As a
result, many people thought we had permanently changed our homepage, so we
decided to _stop today’s series early_. We appreciate your feedback and
patience as we experiment and iterate.

~~~
daten
When I went to google now (10PM EST) I didn't see a background, only a link at
the bottom for setting one. This comment explains why. Thanks for sharing
(upvote).

------
spatulon
I've noticed a pattern every time any website launches a redesign: users
immediately and vehemently dislike it; a couple of months pass; everyone looks
back and wonders what the fuss was and would hate to go back to the old
design.

I seem to be missing the part of DNA or conditioning that causes most humans
to react negatively when anything familiar changes. I'm one of a rare breed
who sees changes as intriguing or exciting (to a fault, I almost always like
redesigns at first).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Crappy rotating background images are not a feature. I always remove them from
every product, desktop, tool I have. I will NOT be "wondering what the fuss
was" in a month.

~~~
spatulon
So you have a preference for removing distracting cosmetic (non-functional)
features. So do I. I probably will turn the background image off, but I could
comfortably live with it.

Maybe I'm inferring too much, but your use of "crappy" and capitalising "NOT"
suggests to me that this feature makes you angry. I think it's worth
considering whether your reaction is a purely logical one, or partly an
emotional one.

~~~
Gormo
How could a reaction to an aesthetic change be anything but emotional?

~~~
devinj
Pretty easily. If it's distracting or somehow bad for me, because of the
aesthetics, I could dislike it for logical reasons.

If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R.
Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of
emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for
business.

Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It changes my perception of the browser state, learned through years of
familiarization. That I could get used to. But its a bad idea on so many other
levels. Its an order of magnitude harder to compress, bogging down remote-
terminal operation. It scrambles the desktop metaphor - I have multiple
monitors, the browser is just one tool that is open, and now this circus-
themed "background" stands out like a beacon but with no functional value
whatsoever. It obscures controls (as widely discussed elsewhere) which is
plain bad app design. It increases (marginally) load time. It "fades in"
creating a distraction for the power user - my desktop doesn't dance around
otherwise unless something significant is happening. Honestly, I have to
wonder if you aren't emotionally defending Google, because these are mostly
obvious reasons to detest this "feature".

------
MrToad
I just found the solution to the background problem, here's the link:
<http://duckduckgo.com/>

------
skybrian
Looks like the best way to get rid of this is to use the secure search:

<https://www.google.com/>

------
joblessjunkie
After changing my background image to plain white, I'm stuck with white text
on a white background. Ugh.

One of the things I always appreciated about Google was its minimalism. Sigh.

~~~
boredguy8
How do you get more minimal than white text on a white background?

~~~
Timmy_C
By getting rid of the text and logo and replacing it with a bar code.

[http://timmy_c.posterous.com/google-ab-testing-feels-too-
min...](http://timmy_c.posterous.com/google-ab-testing-feels-too-minimalistic)

------
OoTheNigerian
Google should have learnt from Buzz. People do not like to opted in without
their consent. If they had made changing background exclusive, a lot of people
(even those complaining now) would want to try it out.

~~~
akkartik
Google doesn't have to 'opt out' people everytime they make a change to their
website.

The phrase 'opt in' is getting mangled way beyond its original meaning of
"don't share my data unless I say so."

------
teoruiz
Funny, there is even a Google Chrome extension named "Remove Google
Background":
[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gihbmmifmldhookm...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gihbmmifmldhookmjgfidleodhpneeil)

But what I have found out is that I rarely use the Google homepage any more. I
usually search through the search bars on Chrome or Firefox, so I didn't
notice the change until I saw it on Twitter.

Anyway, this nightmare will be over tomorrow.

------
JVerstry
Whoever is in charge for this decision at Google, this shows very poor
branding, customer and marketing skills. This looks like improvisation
motivated by despair and panic. A junior's move...

I am switching to the www.google.com/firefox home page, it still has the lean
dan mean looks.

As they say in French 'On ne fait pas le bonheur des gens contre leur gré',
which translates to: you can't shove happiness in people against their will...

~~~
ghb
"You can't make people happy against their will" would be the smoother
translation.

------
johns
Isn't it more interesting that the top trending search term is the name of the
photographer? Doesn't that mean more people like it enough to be curious about
who took the pictures than are looking to shut it off?

------
cabacon
I thought this was a clever way to get people to sign up for a google account
if they didn't already have one for mail/voice/youtube/etc. The background was
annoying, but if you wanted to change it, you had to create an account and use
your own photo. Then it leaves you logged in, and they get search histories
tied to individual accounts.

That's probably just paranoia, but seems like a side-effect they won't mind
even if it wasn't their main intent. It's also part of the reason I won't stay
logged into people's free webmail services after I'm done reading my mail,
though.

------
tokenadult
The Google background never even rolled out to me yet. My browser homepage is
iGoogle, but when I do a Google search from Firefox's search box, I see the
generic Google Web search homepage, and I don't see any background image at
all, and never have yet.

------
stokelake
Conversation in the Google UI team...

Google guy 1 = Why do you people love google? Google guy 2 = Its fast and
uncluttered. Google guy 1 = Good, what we famous for? Google guy 2 = A white
screen and just a search box Google guy 1 = So what what should be do to the
design? Google guy 2 = Leave it? Google guy 1 = No fuc* that I'm bored lets
copy Bing and piss everyone off!

------
percept
SEO: In the search results you can see which site put up two pages this
morning, each targeting a specific keyphrase, to capitalize on the trend.

------
theycallmemorty
This would've made a great april fools prank.

------
melvin
My friend was complaining about the background today. She said she couldn't
get rid of it. She was even going to upload an 800x600 white image.

I've never seen the background image and I can't even get it to appear or find
a setting for it anywhere. (???)

It's kind of like how my Google News was all weird for like 4 days, and then
went back to normal. I do understand a/b testing, but it's strange being an
unwitting, unwilling guinea pig for something I use every day like G News.

~~~
jrockway
You're entitled to a full refund.

~~~
melvin
Flippant comments aside, I'm entitled to use a competitor's product instead if
I don't like how Google is treating me or the changes they are making. This is
likely not the goal that Google was seeking to accomplish. I'm sure you
understand that Google does derive revenue from visitors, correct?

If they want to A/B test something like that on a signed in, daily visiting
member, they should offer a small explanation and an opt in/opt out option.

~~~
jrockway
If people opt in and opt out, then they are testing the interface for people
who are willing to opt in or opt out instead of everyone.

Me, I really don't care. Background image? No background image? Who cares. I
type something into Google and I get where I want to go. And their other
services like Android, Voice, Calendar, and Reader work for me, so I continue
to use them. People waste too much time caring about things that don't matter.
("OH NOES, but what if I'm on the moon and really need to Google search!
Loading the background would be too slow! You Are Not On The Moon.")

------
zyb09
Ha Awesome! Totally fits the stereotype of Google being the superior
engineering company that has no clue when in comes to appealing design. I mean
when you look at this YOU JUST KNOW open-source linux guys are responsible for
it:

[http://www.walyou.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/Koons-...](http://www.walyou.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/Koons-Screenshot.jpg)

~~~
bh42
I don't appreciated the dig at _open-source linux guys_ , but it is true that
image, one of the defaults they chose, is just horrid. What in the hell were
they thinking!

------
WesleyJohnson
I had no idea it even changed until I saw the stories in Google reader. I'm
surprised by how many people are complaining and thus still use the Google
homepage instead of the search bar in their browser. With all the major
browsers having one (Safari, IE, Chrome, FF), what is the benefit of going to
google.com directly? Legitimate question.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Fast home page. At least it was.

~~~
lftl
about:blank is still fast for me

------
tmsh
People are forgetting about Pavlov and the basic idea of 'image' or 'brand',
sacred to advertising. When I think about searching something on the internet,
I subconsciously think about a blank Google search page. If that's no longer
an option, I am no longer going to use Google by default. (Forget that I know
that Google is a better engine. Now I'm thinking -- maybe I should try Bing,
and see what advantages it has.)

People working on search and UX at Google probably think about Bing much more
than the millions of people who use Google regularly. And thanks to Google's
attempt to prematurely optimize (forcing people to try a new background based
on local maxima tests), they've now accelerated the long curve of leveling the
playing field.

Basic psychology 101 though. Same thing applies to other tech companies. Tread
very lightly around any type of modifications to the core feature set and
always make it optional at first.

------
biggitybones
This is a great real world example of why you shouldn't pay attention to what
your competitors are doing, but develop your own product the way you envision
it.

Regardless of their intent, the truth of the matter is it looks like they're
leaving behind the simplicity that made them successful because a competitor
is gaining market share.

------
andybak
Am I missing something or are the words 'remove background image' not really
easy to spot on the Google homepage?

~~~
Gormo
Those words aren't on the Google homepage.

Only after reading your post, I found a link labelled "Change Background
Image" effectively camouflaged on the bottom left of the page, but this only
allows me to select an alternative but equally obtrusive image.

There does not appear to be any immediate way to eliminate the background
image entirely and revert to the clean, usable design that I expect from
Google.

~~~
fleaflicker
you have to click change background, then select the white one at the very end
of the list.

~~~
ojbyrne
The problem with that is that it doesn't change the color of the text back, so
you get white on white (except for the buttons).

------
ashishbharthi
I don't understand why Google is so into background image? Having feature is a
good thing but imposing it on people is going to make them angry. I generally
keep my browser homepage as Google, but this morning because of this
background I had to change my homepage for today.

~~~
scrod
Bing has long "featured" random background images on their home page. So it
seems that Google's confidence and self-restraint have finally slipped:
[http://www.windowsobserver.com/2010/06/10/is-google-
directly...](http://www.windowsobserver.com/2010/06/10/is-google-directly-
copying-bings-homepage-background-image-feature/)

------
dmn001
"Remove google background" button doesn't actually remove the background. It
defaults to a background with a landscape and a metal slide? So, how do you
remove the background?!

EDIT: even if it is forced for 24 hours, at least put a message up on the site
or remove the non-working buttons!

------
mcodik
I can see why non-technical users might go to the google homepage for
searching... but I'm suprised geeks ever go there. I just type search queries
type into my Firefox search box, which is just a keyboard shortcut away. No
background images for me!

------
bh42
No surprise. It is sad to see how going public is now making them force people
to sign up for a google account. I'm switching to <http://duckduckgo.com/>

~~~
philcrissman
I've had duckduckgo as my default search engine in Chrome for over a month and
have been pretty happy.

Occasionally to look up a technical error/issue I have to go back to google;
but you can search google directly from duckduckgo with "g! [your-query]"

------
Deezul
What I find most notable is that this appears to be the first time Google has
ever required a user session to interact with the home page by prompting a
login screen in order to change the background.

------
mrinterweb
I really don't see what the big deal is. People, in general, like things like
desktop backgrounds. If people's main compelling reason for trying/using Bing
was the pretty pictures, I can not blame Google for giving most people the
pretty that they want. Talk about an easy feature to implement. Seriously how
many power users actually use the Google homepage. I for one can not remember
the last time I saw Google's home page. If you do not want pretty Google,
revert to original Google.

------
rev087
I'm pretty sure it's one of these one-day pranks google loves to do, like the
pacman "logo", just a bit more intrusive and annoying then usual. Well, I hope
so at least...

~~~
hugh3
It can't possibly not be, if you'll pardon the double negative. There's no way
they'd switch to white "Google" text after so many years' investment in the
bright colours.

(Yes, I know Apple removed its colours, but that's different.)

It's sure to be back to normal tomorrow.

------
charleso
My first thought was "This is much slower and uglier than Bing". Since Bing's
results have been comparable to Google's for the searches I make (so there's
really no difference between the two for me) that's where I've been today.

For one day, at least, Google managed to change my ingrained habits and switch
to their search competitor. I might even stay there.

Probably not the effect they were looking to have.

------
MikeCapone
It looks like Google has removed the background before the end of the 24 hours
period. At least, that's the case for me on Google.ca

------
jonursenbach
I don't get why everyone is saying Google copied Bing with the background
image when AskJeeves actually did it first 2 years ago.

------
chime
Someone on reddit mentioned this works for now: <https://www.google.com/>

------
Natural2190
...Who really cares? Don't you guys have better shit to do than complain about
a background image?

------
sundae79
You login to change/add image. And google can store your searches to your
username. I know with little bit trickery it can be achieved by them without
you logging in, but by logging in and then searching you explicitly give
permission to store the searches I think.

------
hackerbob
Maybe like with New Coke this would the perfect time for Ballmer to step up
and declare the "Search Wars" over.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Marketing_response_by_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Marketing_response_by_Pepsi)

------
JesseAldridge
Bing puts a semi-transparent rectangle behind their text to make it readable
against the background image. Google didn't do that. So much unreadable text
makes the page seem sloppy and unprofessional. More evidence that Google sucks
at design.

------
Sirocco
According to this blog entry:

<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/art-of-homepage.html>

this is a 24 hour promotion to let people know about their background feature.
Either way, it stinks.

------
ivankirigin
People that liked it or were neutral didn't need or want to search for
anything about it.

------
dunstad
I like it, and I think others will say so once the "OMG it changed!" response
goes away.

------
SanjayU
It is a little annoying, but I usually use Google from within the FF search
box, so not a biggie.

Slightly off topic; I never understood why they made elements "Fade in" on
their page, either. I assume there is a reason other than it "looking cool"?

------
mr_justin
Click "Change Background Image" in the bottom right corner, select "Editor's
Picks", scroll to the bottom, select white.

Problem solved.

I personally like it. Nothing wrong with big beautiful images that do not slow
page load times.

------
mkramlich
I go to Google.com and see no background image. Still plain white background.
Thus, I don't understand the fuss. Do you have to enable it explicitly? Anyone
else had the same experience?

------
SriniK
Looks like it is temporary. Marissa Mayer tweets here:
<http://twitter.com/marissamayer/status/15865817001>

------
davidwparker
I haven't used vanilla google.com in a long time. My homepage is google.com/ig
and normally when I search I just use the search bar built in to Chrome (or
Firefox, etc).

------
Dirt_McGirt
Just FYI, the SSL-enabled homepage doesn't have a background.

------
mdemare
More to the point, now that Google has reverted to normal, how do you remove
the background image from Bing? It's a total dealbreaker for me.

------
harry
Huh, it's just now defaulting back to white for me.

------
latch
i hate it.

------
ulf
<http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/78742>

------
ynniv
Note to self: Google has the capacity to make something well known _quickly_.

------
natmaster
Not even top 10 for me. Guess this was a short lived fad?

------
jcapote
I'll be using duck duck go till they revert.

------
marknutter
Much ado about nothing.

------
ck2
You mean this might make it #1 ?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=remove+google+background>

------
alnayyir
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why google.com is blocked from executing
javascript on my browser (excepting gmail).

