Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
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
Hope they switch it back.
Some interesting things in there.
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.
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.
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?