
Google is Backtracking on its Controversial Desktop Search Results Redesign - infodocket
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/24/21080424/google-search-result-ads-desktop-favicon-redesign-backtrack-controversial-experiment
======
danShumway
It feels like Google is just utterly incapable of ever saying they messed up,
on anything. The statement here should have been really simple: "At Google,
we're always listening to feedback. We want to make sure that ads are clearly
marked, so we'll be experimenting with different favicon placements."

Instead, they go on this weird aside for 2/3rds of the official statement
about how everyone actually really liked the changes on mobile, and all the
initial desktop tests were great too, and site owners loved having their
branding front and center.

If your users widely complain about something, to the point that you're forced
to backtrack on the changes, then why do you think that any of them care about
what your initial user tests showed? None of this qualification is necessary
or relevant except to satisfy Google's weird need to always make sure that
everybody knows the company is always right.

> Last week we updated the look of Search on desktop _to mirror what’s been on
> mobile for months._

Like seriously, what is up with these weird jabs? I'm sorry that we didn't
like your UI redesign, Google. Get over it and stop being so defensive over
user feedback.

~~~
pb7
Or, and hear me out here, they’re saying this wasn’t just a random overnight
change but one that’s been tested and has shown positive feedback on mobile
over a long stretch of time.

It sounds like you just hate Google and put a negative spin on anything you
read now. It would be healthy for you to step away and explore other options
if the company being responsive to customer feedback is this agitating for
you.

I, for one, like the changes so your whole aggressive take is trying to speak
for me when you aren’t.

~~~
xp84
> "that’s been tested and has shown positive feedback on mobile over a long
> stretch of time."

This is a very smart argument for Google to have shifted to.

The thing is, this UI change is quite attractive. I 100% believe that they
focus-grouped this, and that a vast majority of users agree that this looks
nicer.

The "problem" with it, as you probably know, is that the redesign was done to
make ads blend in with real results more effectively to further increase the
no doubt already impressive share of searches that end in a user clicking an
ad.

Users pretty much don't care about this. They generally click whatever's first
and don't care that some retailer or whoever paid Google $1 for the privilege
of appending ".com" to what the user typed and providing a link to be clicked.

The people speaking up are primarily:

* Geeks, who in general avoid ads because they know that they add no value and instead just get in the way of the actual results.

* People who have to pay Google due to this racket, who will have to pay slightly more now that even more users will conflate paid ads with results, meaning that having the best and most relevant website matters less and paying Google the most money and having a higher-clickthrough paid Google ad matters more.

It's simultaneously true that Google tested this and picked a design that
nearly all of its users prefer, and that they're acting like greedy, craven
racketeers here.

------
rcxdude
TBH, I quite liked the changes (a more clear and easy to read indicator of
what the site was seems like an improvement). Adblock deals with the ads
regardless of how similar they look.

~~~
JohnFen
> a more clear and easy to read indicator of what the site was seems like an
> improvement

Interesting. I found the new way to be less clear and easy to read...

------
SaladFork
I am more bothered about the hiding of the URL to some weird breadcrumb-y
structure than the showing (now re-hiding?) of the favicon. Gave DDG a try and
don't see myself switching back.

~~~
JohnFen
Yes, I find this more bothersome than the ads blending into the search results
as well. But Google has been very vocal about their desire to hide important
things like URLs from users, so that wasn't a surprise.

------
smileypete
It seems the A/B testing for this has morphed over to 'what dark patterns can
we ultimately get away with?'

Some of the excellent points Kent Beck makes in this video about leaving
Facebook seem to resonate here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH4gqsIYzyE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH4gqsIYzyE)

------
Despegar
What is there to iterate? Just go back in Google's history and use the design
from 2007.

~~~
parliament32
The _main reason_ everyone likes Google is clean design: as it was from the
start, blue links and black text on a white background. It always had the
simple-HTML feel, making it light and fast, which is what really mattered. But
here they are, trying to insert more images and assets into every page load...

