No user gains anything by it, this actually helps phishing sites. Oh, and it happens to help Google's AMP effort, which can now pretend to be the original site even more effectively. Time to get everyone to use Duck Duck Go, and to get rid of those Google CAPTCHAs which are an even bigger data harvesting operation than search.
Still it’s worth it for the better website design, avoiding AMP, and the general impression that you’re not interacting with a malevolently intentioned entity.
Seriously to all people thinking there is no alternative give it a try, I switched my family and they don’t see a difference.
I use DDG as a default search engine for a while, but fell back to google search often, because I felt that Google results are better. At some point i enabled a stylesheet which made DDG results look like google's. And the search results improved significantly. I stopped using Google search for anything other than Google maps.
However, it's still usable and you can resort to google when a search query isn't working.
DDG has better results than Google for most has cases, and Bing has better results for just under half of use cases.
I guess the stark quality difference I've experienced made me assume everyone had a similar experience.
I'm glad people find ddg useful, I want it to grow (I'm using it despite the fact that I personally find the results inferior)
Virtually all my searches are resolved by DDG. I should also mention that statistically speaking my searches are not particularly complicated, and many are searching for an article or tidbit I had seen before or something where I pick wikipedia as the result.
Not a huge performance difference but it's there.
Once you start remembering the DDG bang operators things get much smoother. Also, one more thing, DDG has a cli client that is pretty awesome if you live in the cli like I do.
I use DDG as the default and have been doing so for many years. I still have to add !g every time I search for violin related questions. The results are often just not relevant at all.
I think DDG still has a long way to grow to be a 100% replacement for Google outside the tech and science community.
What I assume people do is they click on the python 2 docs then change the version on the python website. So, from bings perspective it looks like people want the python 2 links. It always frustrates me and makes looking stuff up longer than needed.
For example, I tried searching for "python lists" in my address bar (DDG is my default) and I got all sorts of garbage.
Next, I typed "!py lists" and the browser immediately opened this page for me: https://docs.python.org/3/search.html?q=lists
So that works really nice if what you need is Python's native docs.
But there's more to "bang" syntax usage, now totaling over 13,000 bangs: https://duckduckgo.com/bang#bangs-list
It's a default with Brave browser, and I've decided to give it a go. That was about a year ago when I first started to use Brave. Back then, some search results were poor, especially localised ones, so I've decided to use Google.
Now it's much better, some results are even better than google where better SEO trumps more relevant results.
Also, Brave has this nice feature where typing `:g<tab>[search term]` uses google for that one serach term. I use it if am not able to get good results with DDG.
Most of the time I find whatever I am looking for directly on the results page like movie review, ratings, actors, related movies and many other things. It shows prices of a product on different stores directly and also related products. No other search engine does this. Bing is almost there except it does not show product prices in my country.
Can we launch a class action lawsuit against Google if they harm people by limiting consumer choice, and force us to be tracked everywhere using reCAPTCHA v3 and various other methods?
Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a real option, there are several government services, health care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA, you personal data either gets harvested by Google, or you're barred from accessing essential online services.
What can EU and US citizens do to initiate an investigation into Google's data harvesting practices?
Once upon a time, Congress used to write and pass laws to protect Americans from egregious abuses of power like this. Of course, that time is long gone.
Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
Google is engaged in using its market dominance in one segment to gain or maintain dominance in others, while suppressing the competition. This is illegal behavior for which Google has been fined several times over the past few years.
Just consider that in past Android versions there was a hard-coded Google search bar on the default home screen that you could not remove. Google has been forced to ask users and offer a set of alternative search engines on devices with recent Android versions. Same goes for Chrome and competing browsers .
Right now Google Search detects the Firefox for Android user agent and serves a second-tier search experience for Firefox users on Android. They have been doing this for the past 6 years .
Their unethical behavior lead me to quit, divest, and delete all of my Google accounts.
Yes, it very obviously is. Google the search engine, and therefore Google, would never have gotten off the ground if it had hidden URL from the beginning.
> and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
If so many people don't care about something so basic and crucial to not being a serf in the information age, then that makes the issue even more important, and Google's behaviour even more egregious.
While there's a chance the EU might do something about the behavior, I think it's safe to say that here in the US the odds of anything pro-consumer happening anytime soon are effectively nil.
There are people who could not register to vote in time because reCAPTCHA has blocked them.
300,000 users a month and we don't have any problems. Why do people think this is so critical? Just because TEH GOOGLE convinced us it is in order to push their product?
A load of other anti-spam captchas not owned by Google...
That doesn't mitigate Google's evil, it makes it worse.
> Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a
> real option, there are several government services, health
> care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA,
> you personal data either gets harvested by Google,
> or you're barred from accessing essential online services.
Using italics by putting asterisks around the quote seems to work reasonably well.
Thanks, I'll try it.
Users also can easily go to another search engine. Why sue Google because users decide not to go anywhere else?
Ease-of-switching puts the onus on the user to recognize corporate violations of anti-trust law rather than upon the company violating anti-trust regulation.
It doesn't really make sense to presume users would or should change their behavior if a provider violates anti-trust law.
So does that mean that Netflix shouldn’t have used its dominance in DVD rentals to get into streaming and just die when another company did? Should Apple not have been allowed to use its dominance in the music/media player business to get into the smart phone business?
Antitrust was traditionally used when a company kept other competitors out. How is Google stopping another competitor from creating a search engine? The fact is that no one is forced to use Google. People can just as easily type bing.com in their browser as google.com.
In fact, the dominant desktop OS, doesn’t have Google as the default search engine and thanks to a consent decree - at least in the EU - Google cant force manufacturers of Android devices to make it the default search engine.
If Microsoft wanted to outbid Google to be the default search engine on iOS devices it could.
> Such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position and hence is in breach of competition law.
> It is not illegal for a company to enjoy dominance in a particular market. However, a company which is dominant in one market can easily use its market power to cement or further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets. 
Regarding Netflix and Apple, the answer is "it depends". Cases are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Not sure we disagree (?). My understanding is that Google has a practical monopoly on search. This is not illegal in and of itself. Anti-competitive practices that leverage its dominance in search, however, would likely run afoul of EU and US antitrust regulations. (I'm not an attorney, and My understanding of antitrust law is at the level of layperson. )
Make this concept popular and even the layperson will understand what Google is doing to them.
Eventually, like previous major computer companies, its monopoly will weaken, and it will have to play a bit nicer.
I was arguing that Google/Alphabet is subject to the same forces that brought down the reign of other dominant companies in the software industry like IBM and Microsoft* . Eventually Google's reign will crumble too, and probably for the same reasons.
Our actions, albeit small can push in that direction, just like small actions helped to bring down others. Choosing other computer providers made IBM unable to extend its practices to minicomputers and left them vulnerable to MS. Linux played a role in denying server marketshare to MS. Popular opinion aided the antitrust cases against both MS and IBM - it is not commonly known these days there was a massive antitrust case against IBM which lasted even longer than the MS case.
* Note that both of these companies still exist and are very wealthy. I for one, do not seek to abolish Google - just to limit their ambitions to something that can coexist with others.
There are a lot of Google employees (and potential Google employees) on HN.
So if "we" includes them, then yes, "we" could do a lot... like not work for Google.
So they give me thousands of non relevant search results.
And I can't believe that you would get thousands of non relevant results. Please show an example.
But at least with DDG we have to option of quoting the terms. Google is much worse at this in any way you care to measure.
Alternatively, you can use Startpage, which uses Google results, but anonymized.
Edit: However, that includes their Instant Answers feature, and the numbers are outdated, it’s 1600 sources, most of which are catering to an specific and tiny niche (like angular.js docs, or a dictionary of accounting terms). Main sources are Bing, Yahoo, Wolfram Alpha and their own crawler (according to Wikipedia).
It's mostly Bing/Yahoo/Yandex rebranded depending on the country.
Bing seems fine to me.
When I got a Surface Pro 4 three years ago, I decided to give Edge a try to see if it would do as my main browser, and left Bing as its default search.
Three years later, I've not felt the need to change that.
Where did you get your suggestion?
An even better one, something like "30GB at 20Mbit/s !wa" brings you to wolfram alpha and starts the calculation automatically.
I also don't really understand what's wrong with data harvesting, if anyone wants to enlighten me, please do
> I also don't really understand what's wrong with data harvesting
If you don't understand why people get pissed when they're forced to get every detail of their lifes put on permanent record by google without a choice to opt out, I can't help you with that. You should probably move to china, I recon you'll like it there.
BTW DDG was very nice during the PSPS recently, as our cell data was extremely slow and DDG was nice and fast on that connection. Relatively speaking.
Google penalises other websites for stealing content or re-hosting stuff without adding value, then goes ahead and does exactly that all the time.
"MDDS was introduced to several dozen leading computer scientists at Stanford, CalTech, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and others in a white paper that described what the CIA, NSA, DARPA, and other agencies hoped to achieve."
Whether it is significant or not is another matter entirely.
Still, I'm skeptical. The link doesn't really say In-Q-Tel influenced Google directly, I especially don't see evidence for influence during Google's early years.
It appears Keyhole (a company G acquired in 2005, who's software became Google Earth) was funded in part by intelligence money. Google went public in 2004, so they were already beholden to public shareholders by the time of that acquisition.
Besides, Keyhole just made good mapping software. DARPA funds lots of robotics labs, but I wouldn't say Berkeley and CMU are any more a part of the US intelligence apparatus than I am as a tax payer. Some work they do has utility to the gov, so the gov funded it. That doesn't make their efforts direct intelligence work.
Add in whatever the modern version of Operation Mockingbird is and those companies at the very least are sure to have been infiltrated after the fact. Probably willingly. You'd be surprised how servile people get when men in black suits with 3letter badges show up and say the words "National Security". All these factors and more in aggregate make the probability that there was government influence and involvement highly likely.
For those who want just a primer on this complex subject, here is a decent article: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo...
Another interesting interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfUm0RxXWxI
I ended up in their google maps product on mobile and was clicking around between their reviews, their location on google maps, the opinions of other google users about what they thought crate and barrel was good at, pictures of crate and barrel stores, etc...
But I could not find their websites URL... not in what I would consider a reasonable amount of time at least.
Obviously I found it in the end.
But I couldn't help but think that Google really doesn't want me even going to the actual URL.
They want me to call and drive to the store using their phone and their google maps product, and leave a review on their platform, growing their company's value for them.
Crate and barrel and my original intentions be damned.
I've stated this before, but it bears repeating:
Google does not make money from you finding what you're looking for.
Google only makes money from you hunting for what you're looking for.
Repeating problematic incentives is fine. Ignoring counteracting incentives is misleading but popular in all debates.
- Monthly: Incentives variable, but generally low quality results (for slot machine psychology.)
- For each match/hookup/"real" relationship: Incentives results that produce relationships that last exactly long enough to be considered a match/hookup/"real" relationship.
- One-time upfront: Incentivize finding the best available candidate ASAP in order to save server costs.
- Monthly, cost propositional to success rate: Optimizing for some specific length of relationship that someone calculated to be optimal.
There are most likely other funding possibilities, and I've most likely misunderstood some rule of economics. Note that none of these optimize specifically for happiness in relationships, only for longevity.
DuckDuckGo has mobile apps: https://duckduckgo.com/app
So it proves that you can use DuckDuckGo to immediately get the link with no fuss, and that Google Search is increasingly not designed to facilitate that kind of interaction.
The links obviously works, but if you want it to look nicer, why not just click and get the URL from the browser? That might even be faster depending on device and keyboard/touchscreen/mouse setup and usage.
This is easy enough [for me] to work around with browser developer tools on the desktop, but a PITA on, e.g., iOS, where these are not readily available.
Google could solve the problem without sacrificing telemetry by overriding the context menu for the link with an option to "show original link".
I just want the link :)
It proves that you don't understand how Google works.
Each search is custom to the person, profile, IP address, geolocation, search history, surfing history, purchase history, social media, and a thousand other trade secrets that Google holds. No two searches are the same.
This is why when Sally in Accounting searches for something on her work computer, and Mike in Facilities searches for the same thing on his phone they get different results.
There is little doubt that Sally, Mike, and everyone else, will get that website as the first result for that query on desktop, unless they specifically block English-language results.
Google search link fix https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search...
Google Search URL Fixup
Adding an addon feels more like gaslighting myself that they're not abusive really. Was bad enough when they "innovated" search by adding a JS redirect to every visible URL so what you saw wasn't what you got - just what you eventually got after they've logged and tracked you.
But you can't because they use google.com and gstatic.com.
I've been thinking about adding google.com to my hosts roundfile. Do you what other domains/IP ranges I should use?
I think best thing is switch default search to a new engine to get used to it, takes a little adjusting but worthwhile.
I just want a plain list of websites, thank you. If I want images or videos or news, I'll click that handy tab you provided for me...
This is openly hostile to the foundation of the web. They aren't even bothering to pretend anymore.
Chrome doesn't show http/s or www in the address bar anymore. this made me incorrectly communicate a URL yesterday. for example www.news.ycombinator.com and news.ycombinator.com look exactly the same in Chrome's address bar. no idea why they made that decision...
just yesterday i noticed that hovering some hyperlinks doesn't reveal the linked URL at the bottom of the screen. so weird...
Do you have an example of that behavior?
I wanted to know "what is a lure in counterintelligence?". Here is a link to the second search result, which happens to be a PDF:
For the answer to the query, search for "dangle" in the PDF.
I’ve been using DDG for around a year now after numerous failed attempts in the past. I, too, had been frustrated with some search results, but I don’t miss Google anymore at all thanks to the bangs feature.
It is not obvious but DDG has a learning curve. You should re-learn the practice of “Googling skill” that we had to have years ago. I could even guess which queries DDG would fail to bring meaningful results before hitting enter now. In these cases I add a “!s” bang for https://startpage.com — a privacy conscious Google proxy.
DDG bangs are especially useful on iOS, where you could type a query from any page and only have 3 options: Search in the Web/App Store/Maps. If the search engine is DDG though, you could search your query in any website you know its bang with just a single step.
Remember that AOL, Yahoo, and MySpace “monopolized” the internet not that long ago. There were hysterical articles in the mid 2000s speculating on whether or not these companies had a “cyber monopoly”. I doubt you think those companies are still the dominant players on the internet...
I still think Google's general direction is clear with more webmaster incentives for structured data, amp and also Google just straight up answering questions (nutrition, sports etc.). But this example doesn't prove that Google is removing URLs from SERPs, it is one version of many that are tested constantly to improve CTR and other metrics.
No doubt some will find it helpful (as with AMP). Some will find it unacceptable appropriation. I'm most definitely in the latter camp. I don't use Google search anymore, having transitioned to DDG 2+ years ago. I rarely find situations where reverting to Google is necessary, and when I do, a `g!` in DDG is as close as I get.
I realise I may be in a minority, but as far as I'm concerned both Google and Facebook have jumped the shark. They're become corporate behemoths, a malaise that seems to come to all companies of a certain age and scale. They've lost focus on providing useful, innovative services for real people. Instead, they're all about "shareholder value". Both are ripe for disruption.
Google funnels me to products, services, and affilate marketing blogs, advertisements and their own paid ad placement. To Google, the internet is shopping, and maybe a least-common-denominator social network or two. Garbage.
Google feels like going to the Mall anymore. Super sad, but as you have noticed the silver lining is the fabulous service of duck.com.
If I were paying for google search with a credit card, I would cancel, and then call to stop payment. Too bad they never asked for my money.
Honestly, I was willing to put up with BS so long as I actually got the data I was looking for. Now that I do not get it, and am forced into every result being turned into "I'm feeling lucky", I now have to abandon Google search.
This is a bigger deal than they want it to be.
Forced trust scenarios never go well. Abuse = profit = abuse.
But if it's not an experiment, I'd start putting my energy into moving away from Google. In the AltaVista era, just before Google, there was a company called Real Names, which wanted to bypass intentional DNS and use searches as direct keywords to domains. Since many people use Google to go to everyday sites, just taking the top result each time, this is in effect what Google would be doing with this change, since one would have to actually go to the site to verify it. Which would be great for ad impressions, but terrible for the consumer experience, IMO way too random for Google to seriously consider it. The next step would be to remove URLs from browsers. But that would be quite a change in direction from good intentions.
This happened with the little icons next to the "all/news/images" tabs at the top a few months ago, I didn't see them in my G search but incognito showed them.
I have met a lot of people in my career who are motivated to do work for the public good in order for the whole world to benefit (e.g., standards, open source, public speaking/education etc.) and not just one company. I met the vast majority of those people after I joined Google, and many of the others had previously worked at Google.
As a lowly engineer, it is difficult for me to speculate about the true motivations of upper management. But, I do feel confident saying that I work alongside a lot of people who are not motivated by evil or "embrace, extend, extinguish" mentality. My colleagues have good intentions, and they act on them.
That said, Google is a big place. It's so big that usually I only hear about user-hostile things like this from the news. I personally find it demotivating and sad, because it undermines the good work that I know is being done elsewhere in the company. It seems like the latest in a long string of incidents, and it probably won't be the last.
So, take that for what you will. But, please also consider that it may not be as binary good/evil as you make it sound.
Even the originator of 'embrace, extend, extinguish' had good people working for them. That doesn't mean that early 2000s Microsoft wasn't a fairly evil organization. To Natella's credit, they have radically changed, but please re-read your comment and consider that it doesn't actually prove anything about Google as an organization.
This isn't a comic book or a Marvel movie. Companies are just that, companies. They're incentivized to make money. Google is as evil as BP, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Ford or Tesla.
Instead of doing comic book analogies which don't apply to real world, perhaps start thinking in terms of incentives that drive these companies and how you can fix your government regulation to push them to improving your own life.
Apple does some stuff I hate, and Ford really likes selling gas-guzzling F150s, but neither company tends to be overtly malicious in their decisions. Whereas Oracle actively chooses to continue with their hostile sales model; most of their users hate having to deal with the company (the customers are normally upper management that doesn't have to use the software).
I chose to use the word 'evil' mainly due to Google's former slogan. I really think that despite the best intentions of many of the employees Google is starting to slide towards the evil end of the scale.
Obviously good people work at all those companies too. Doesn’t mean the company as a whole isn’t a good force.
Funnily enough I was talking to a friend of a friend who works for LinkedIn. He essentially said the same thing you said wrt not hearing about the negative things about LinkedIn in his every day life. He had no idea that there’s a big tech literate and otherwise chunk of people who find LinkedIn’s dark patterns awful. He didn’t even think LI had any because in his daily life at the company, that sort of stuff didn’t come up.
Another anecdote is my uncle works for Comcast. Same with him, he doesn’t hear about the negatives of the company in his every day life.
Your situation seems like this friend if friends. It makes sense. What company wants to be seen as evil? What sort of normal employee wants to think of the company they work for as a bad company? Nonetheless, there’s good reason people have issues with Google, LinkedIn, and Comcast.
As a user and internet person, Google is a huge net negative and needs to go away. AMP, Chrome, Gmail, Search, Android, Google Home, Google News... all of these products have massive, toxic reach and they're damaging the technology landscape.
This is just another manifestation of the corporate/state control and Balkanisation of the Internet that has slowly been taking place. The Internet will pretty soon be entirely subsumed into various the structure of various countries and corporations and there'll be no such thing as the "free web", at least for most users not willing to go through several hoops.
Google's current behavior makes it so you can't copy URLs from search results so your only option is to copy the displayed URL (if it's short enough) ... so of course, they're going to remove the displayed URL.
Copying the search results URLs is something that I need to do almost every day to copy scientific paper urls to people in chat ... usually I can't click the url to get it, because clicking it just launches a PDF viewer.
This single obnoxious bit of user spying behavior that Mozilla continues to facilitate has probably already wasted a full working week of my life.
On the plus (?) side, now that google is removing the one remaining work around I'll likely get stuck using a non-google search regardless of the worse results.
The Google way is to reduce complexity for the user as much as possible. This may be in contrast to what most HN users expect from a search engine (transparency and control). Google has been ignoring this segment as most use adblocker anyway so the cost/benefit appears bad, for now.
google (unexpected crash: CAPTCHA required)
I like the idea though
Error! Engines cannot retrieve results.
google (unexpected crash: CAPTCHA required)
Please, try again later or find another searx instance.
When I'm looking for an image, I expect my search engine to return me a URL with .png or .jpg at the end of it.
Depending on some conditions that aren't always you get the true link or you get the wrapped link.
My guess is that they have an array of techniques for tracking your clicks (js trickery, "ping" attribute,...) and resort to wrapping only when the other ones are less likely to work.
<a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/a" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/a&ved=2ahUKEwjmxMHk5MvlAhWVvp4KHS6lCqIQFjAAegQIABAB">
Before, all the results generated were direct links without any wrappers. Then Google decided they needed to know which of the links people were clicking so they injected a wrapper around every link so they'd get a request from every click.
Sure, it can be used to increase accuracy of search results. It can also be used to taylor data and profiles around individual users at finer and finer granularity.
The first few results from the searches all have recent "Doesn't work anymore"-ish comments.
The first one works for me.
De-emphasizing the URL in search is a necessary step on the path to that end. The less of a role the URL plays in ordinary people's lives, the less that people will understand it, and the more evidence Google will see that it can be de-emphasized in other places, and eventually removed or replaced entirely.
And to a certain extent, I get it. I myself would like to move away from URLs to a DAT-adjacent system. I'm not fond of DNS as it works today. I just think Google's approach to all of this is naive and user-hostile. I think their solution will be worse than the problem.
Proponents of DAT systems are advocating that URLs as we use them today aren't great for a lot of stuff, including protecting against phishing, and we should be more up-front about that and stop aiming for readability in domain names -- in short, don't promise something that we can't guarantee. On the other hand, Google is advocating that there should be centralized authorities that tell you Walmart is Walmart and everything should be highly tied to trademarks and brands. Their position is, "phishing won't be a problem because we'll just get good at blocking phishers." When you search on Google for Walmart, it'll be the first result and you'll click on it and trust Google.
It's a very centralized, brand-first, Capitalist approach to the web, where reliability is tied to being big enough that you can tell potential customers or users to just Google your name.
Sometimes Google does bad things and we theorize that maybe they're trying to change the web; but in this case we don't have to theorize. They're just openly trying to change the web. Google doesn't like URLs.
I initially _had_ to because the search itself became unreliable for me (finding technical terms is now a frustration in quoting and checking for "missing from the page: term"), but other search engines (like ddg) are not better in this area. Issues with AMP links though made me permanently switch the default search engine entirely.
I now use google as a backup, reluctantly and in combination with others, exactly how I was using altavista and yahoo eons ago.
I would have never imagined this would happen.
But if I ask _any_ other non-tech person, google is still the only search engine they know (or even don't know) about.
For instance, if you google https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+eat+world+555 you get a thumbnail with a Youtube URL linking to the actual video but as soon as you right or left click the link it's changed to a google.com link with a lot of parameters. Makes it super frustrating if you want to share a link to the youtube video from the SERP.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU-TZiVVaTE" onmousedown="return rwt(this,'','','','1','AOvVaw3lnl6zJ37POHhefQnIow95','','2ahUKEwiZ0PDWzMvlAhVDaFAKHQGODhYQyCkwAHoECAkQBQ','','',event)">
Over the past 6 months they’ve already increased the font size of SERPs, made their ads look even more similar to organic results, and started showing multiple results from the same site in the top 5 results for highly competitive terms. All of these “optimizations” are designed to encourage more ad revenue.
Plus their Google Ads account managers have become hyper aggressive in pushing their keyword and bidding AI, which according to our tests increase costs per conversions.
I get that they got used to tremendous growth in the early days. But it has to stop at some point. Same is true for the economy (we "fix" that with inflation). And they're probably going to be split up before they reach the theoritical maximum.
Couldn't they just be nice neighbors and not squeeze the last drop of milk out of us.
I'd wager that the drop in productivity caused by Google, Facebook and the advertisement-based business model that they encourage dwarfs their revenue by several orders of magnitude.
Google (and other corps) will realize that when stock market will stop demanding infinite growh and not a cent sooner. Leaderships don't get paid in user happiness, they get rewarded by stock value. And stock market demands infinite unbounded growth for all eternity.
There is significant resentment towards Google in the SEM community (and by people overall).
Subjectively, their results have gotten significantly worse over the past 1.5 years.
Search is ripe for disruption.
- Ads look like valid search results
- Ads are on top, right, bottom in desktop, on maps too
- URLs disappear
- The address bar shortens the history, and search is the only way out
- Less advanced search options
Rife for disruption.
Also don't forget that not too long ago, Google decided to start hiding pieces of URLs and convincing the web standards groups to make that a standard:
(In that article there's a very visible email address of a product manager at Google responsible for this, be sure to let her know your thoughts...)
I think that's just more proof that "web standards" aren't necessarily good for the user, especially if they're controlled by anti-user corporations. It's not unlike what's happening with open-source too: "we can do all these horrible things to oppress you, but it's open-source so you can see exactly what we do to you."
Designing for small screens is tricky. You can still get the whole URL easily.
You could send email but it's just going to come off as badly informed, unless you show that you understand what they're trying to do and still disagree.
If users don’t see the domain then they may see a similar site and click on it. But it’s not the official site.
I noticed this particularly badly when I tried to Google a product. I was after reviews but without the links it is impossible to tell whether a result leads to a review, a shop, a forum or whatever. It was surprising to me how much information is encoded in a URL. I analyzed it subconsciously all the time. It only became obvious once it was missing.
(I have an old Firefox and Chrome add-on, "Ad Limiter", which puts ratings on links based on finding the business behind the site and looking it up. As a side effect, if you mouse over its colored checkmarks, you get a "dog tag" with info about the site, including the domain. So that's an available workaround, if needed.)
And this is now. Do no evil my a$$ Mr. Sergey Brin. Hypocrite is your middle name. Yeah, yeah I know, it is all big bad shareholders
So I wonder if Google plans to drop URLs from actual search results. And if they do, whether using Startpage, or DDG with the Google option, would still show them.
I have no Google accounts.
That seems odd. You'd think that having an account would provide better service.