| 11:20 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Those danged engineers always forget that the eye can scan and the brain can capture a heck of a lot more information than they give credit.
Hey Googlers, I don't read with my cursor. Just 'caue you came up with a couple of neat tricks doesn't mean you have to use 'em.
| 11:46 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Accessibility issues G?
Doesn't show mouseover when using tab.
| 11:53 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Oh how cute - and incredibly annoying. Blech!
| 11:59 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That couldn't possibly be permanent, could it?
| 12:18 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Gee, thanks for the extra carpal tunnel Google.
What a dumb idea.
| 12:21 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Can't see anyone getting used to this. Yuk - doesn't work for me at all. Very frustrating.
| 12:40 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Aside from accessibility issues I like it--a much cleaner page, sort of like Google's home page--no clutter.
| 12:41 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Most importantly, the url of the site hosting the image is now invisible. If they're going to take our content, they should leave the url visible
| 12:46 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I kinda like it.
| 12:50 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That is irritating and if very off-putting.
I fail to see what it achieves or how it can be seen as an improvement.
| 1:03 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ugggghhhh... What are they thinking?
I use google images fairly often. Having to mouse over will be a pain. I don't see any advantage, especially in the area of usability.
When looking at the image results I want to see the url for a number of reasons.
1. I can avoid garbage sites
2. I can see where images from MY sites are placing in the image serps
3. I can check quickly to see if someone is ripping off my images
Two thumbs down!
Gee, maybe the same design team can add other useless features like:
- Playing a little random note chime when you mouse over each picture
- Allowing you to select the mouse over color
- Custom fade in/fade out effects on mouseover
- Changing your cursor depending on what you are searching for-- ie searching for 'lighthouses' makes your cursor turn into a mini lighthouse
- Color coding results.. Ie. Red for adult sites, green for global warning warming sites, etc
-Making a custom frame around the colored box - ie. Wooded frames for historical pics, Neon for art deco etc.
I'm really glad to see that Google has finally fixed the Spam/Scraper/Made for adsense/Canonical URLs/301 and 302 Hijacking issues etc and has time to spend wrecking what was a perfectly good interface
| 1:12 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, they definitely need the URL for the reasons given by cmendla.
| 1:16 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What bugs me the most is the "more results from..." links. You're forced to mouse over every image in order to see the choice of links on the page. Makes no sense.
| 1:18 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Saw this last week but it wasn't rolled out everywhere yet, I guess. Some interesting things in there.
| 2:14 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't care for it - I use the urls when looking for something - scanning like jimbeetle does to determine if what I'm looking for is likely to be there - and I'm pretty sure I don't want to wave my cursor over everything on the page. (reminds me of mystery meat navigation in a way, point to things to see if they'll do a backflip or something)
Hope they switch it back.
| 3:39 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Some interesting things in there. |
Huh? I'm not seeing anything new, just that most of the text is suppressed until mouseover.
Actually it looks like this is a response to (and a copy of) the MSN Live image search. But I don't like that interface much either, and in fact it's pretty confusing. In Explorer, I can't even figure out how to get to page 2 of the MSN Live search results, whereas in Firefox I tried the same search and it just keeps going and keeps going. I can see hundreds and hundreds of thumbnails on one page.
| 4:13 am on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It's a fantastic improvement. I'm hoping they apply it the regular, non-image SERPS too!
just kidding, just kidding....
| 1:38 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is horrible! Worst move yet as far as an image search. I know, let's let you search for something but we'll only show you a piece of the results! It's like just showing titles for a regular search. A complete waste of technology and time. I think they've just rendered the image search useless.
If indeed they did borrow this little idea from MSN, then shame on you. It's supposed to go the other way around remember? Regift it. Roll it back. Do what you need to do.. but PLEASE PLEASE give us back the old faithful.
| 1:44 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
bad bad bad
| 2:17 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Saw this last week but it wasn't rolled out everywhere yet, I guess. |
Yep, you noticed it almost two weeks ago now ... Change in Google Image Search [webmasterworld.com]
| 2:27 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If it ain't broke.....
Google pay people to do this?
Giz a job goog! I could screw loads of stuff up way quicker and cheaper than the guys you paid to do this!
| 2:35 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I had to install the quick java firefox extension just to be able to use the search function how it should be. Thanks for the JS tip Coopster.
| 2:45 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hate it. Horrible. Pointless.
| 2:50 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What is the point behind this?
Only one I can think of is to hide the URL.
| 2:58 pm on Jan 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This has to be from the same folks at Google that completely destroyed the Dejanews interface... no common sense.
| 2:02 am on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes does not look good you get less inf per page this way, i want to see the URL and a little text.
They should fix the "Moderate SafeSearch is on" that has gone totaly crazy 3 month ago, they filter everything out, also a update would be nice.
| 3:01 am on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Looks better, works worse.
| 1:29 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google Images now only shows the image and the description. Useful informations such as the image size and url are hidden : you must move the mouse over the image to see them. Even in the Preferences section it is not possible to see all the informations by default.
I think it's not a very good idea to hide the url because it can tell us if the image is relevant or not (imdb.com or spam-site-false-image.com). Also hiding the image dimensions can be a loss of time when we are looking for 1024x768 wallpapers (for example).
What do you think about it?
| 5:54 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3231754.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 6:16 pm on Jan. 25, 2007 (utc 0)
It looks like some type of AJAX stuff that Google is dabbling with. When you mouseover the image it gives a light blue background and lists some of the details of the photos. Thought it was a cool new feature Google has added.
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 (  2 ) > > |