 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Google f.cked up again
What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this feature! This is just agnother aspect od Google's WAR on Usenet see here: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C81227B and here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/61e38ced546577bb Look, if you see hoe wthery're trying to intergate Google Usenet into Google groups, it must be part of a plot to cemnsor us all! I predicted this of curse god damnit! Andrew Usher > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message > list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this > feature! Wow, just changed it. I only use google for the archives anyway. > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message > list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this > feature! Google has changed the image search. Now you have to put the cursor over each thumbnail to see information about the image. Now you can't just glance at the page of thumbnails and see what's up with the images. How is this an improvement? Is there a way to tell Google their changes stink? The xerlome entity posted thusly: >> What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and >> there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Is there a way to tell Google their changes stink? Let me know if you find a way. I want to tell them I like the change you speak of. If I'm looking for an image, it's the image itself I am mostly interested in. Once I find one I want to see more about, I can just drive the cursor over it to check the info. I find it preferable to the clutter of both images and words. > > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message > > list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this > > feature! I remember when they made major changes several years ago, they brought back missing features within days -- partly, I think, because people like us sent e-mails to them. Polite ones. > Google has changed the image search. Now you have to put the cursor > over each thumbnail to see information about the image. Now you can't > just glance at the page of thumbnails and see what's up with the > images. How is this an improvement? Perhaps this is one of those changes they have only instituted in one world-region (to be followed by other regions) because when I checked Google images just now, it was the same as always for me. > Is there a way to tell Google their changes stink? See comment above. Yes, they do read suggestions and sometimes act on them.  SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux An American living in the Netherlands The Donna Richoux entity posted thusly: >> > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and >> > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >See comment above. Yes, they do read suggestions and sometimes act on >them. Good. I just sent them an email telling them how much I like the new Image search format. > [The Donna Richoux entity posted thusly:] [...] >>> Google has changed the image search. Now you have to put the cursor >>> over each thumbnail to see information about the image. Now you >>> can't just glance at the page of thumbnails and see what's up with >>> the images. How is this an improvement? [...] >>> Is there a way to tell Google their changes stink? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good. I just sent them an email telling them how much I like the new > Image search format. Well, it certainly _looks_ cleaner. But who cares about that, within reason, when what they want is information? From a usability stance, it's an improvement-for-the-worse. A lot of design on the 'net, as elsewhere, seems to be based on an assumption that people don't like reading text: I can't for a moment believe that this applies to you, Oleg. Another bee in my bonnet about bees in designers' bonnets: how can we get these language-shy individs to use question marks after questions? I'm thinking of Ggl's "Did you mean: _paulownia_". Surely nobody's irritated by the presence of an erotesis, while many are irritated by its absence? (See also "momentarily".) SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com The Mike Lyle entity posted thusly: >> [The Donna Richoux entity posted thusly:] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >reading text: I can't for a moment believe that this applies to you, >Oleg. Well, I don't mind text, certainly, but when I'm looking for images, I don't need a lot of text spreading out the information I'm looking for. There are more pictures per given window size, which I consider a definite plus. The extra white space around the picture and caption is less distracting that the text, too. Any I'm interested in seeing more about, takes only a short movement of the mouse to see the size and URL >Another bee in my bonnet about bees in designers' bonnets: how can we >get these language-shy individs to use question marks after questions? >I'm thinking of Ggl's "Did you mean: _paulownia_". Surely nobody's >irritated by the presence of an erotesis, while many are irritated by >its absence? (See also "momentarily".) That bugs ne too (the lack of a question mark). Just as bad, thought Google doesn't do it, is when someone uses a question mark at the end of a sentence like "I wonder where he bought that." "Momentarily", is one I have given up on. Skunked, it is. > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Andrew Usher Also, the interface makes it hard to read whole paragraphs without using the slide bar. And when composing posts, you can't cursor right to the end of the line or see whole words there without using the hard return and then backspacing. TOF > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Google groups, it must be part of a plot to cemnsor us all! I predicted > this of curse god damnit! I don't even see "Show message list". They've taken a bad thing, and made it worse. I expected nothing less of them after the previous few changes they made. Developers without a clue. UDP for google, it's the only sane solution. Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. >> What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and >> there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > UDP for google, it's the only sane solution. You aren't going to like this any more than I do, but it seems to me the only power on earth which could at present offer an effective challenge to Google's unaccountable attack on Usenet is Microsoft. Well, Yahoo, too. Can either be got to understand the Cinderella medium's potential? SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > >> there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com It is much slower for me but this is the first day I have used it. Too bad they do not have a LO-Fi version, I am only interested in the text. > > >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/61e38ced546577bb > > It is much slower for me but this is the first day I have used it. Too > bad they do not have a LO-Fi version, I am only interested in the text. Use the Elmer Fudd version, that's still the old way. Phil Signature"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. On Jan 24, 2:46 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/61e38ced546577bb > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of > /In God We Trust, Inc./. Nerds and geeks are driven to use the latest, e-snazziest junk. They don't care if the rest of us can figure it out, or if it is useful. It's the latest, man! (chortle) They'd plotz if they ever realized that the young and hip have ever felt so -- remember "It's the ginchiest"? Back before their parents were born? There is a discussion group; I found it when I was still trying to find my groups. Was it under Help? When you find it, you'll have to join it. There are several threads saying horrible things about the new interface! And Google says that a Google person comes in to take a look every now and then. Google Groups Guide aka Google Groups Help Group: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Groups-Guide?lnk=li maybe. Cece >On Jan 24, 2:46 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Cece The image change is a big step backwards for no reason. I used this Google feedback route to send a complaint: http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=search I suggest others could do the same. The least they could do is incorporate a switch to revert to the old style in personal preferences. Don. The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >>On Jan 24, 2:46 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >The image change is a big step backwards for no reason. I used this >Google feedback route to send a complaint: I see it as a BIG improvement. Uncluttered, simple, and since it's the image I am primarily interested in (else why bother with image search?), it's the images I get to see. More of them fit on the same-sized window, and if I am interested, I drive the mouse over it. >http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=search > >I suggest others could do the same. I did, but my comments were positive. >The least they could do is incorporate a switch to revert to the old >style in personal preferences. Yeah, that would work. >The Don Petter entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >search?), it's the images I get to see. More of them fit on the >same-sized window, and if I am interested, I drive the mouse over it. I find the url very useful to give me an idea if it's a suitable site for what I want. For example, I might be searching for an icon to use on my site - knowing that the example shown is from "freeicons.example.com" rather than from "buy-our-icons.example.com" is useful. Saving mouse activity - allowing me to scan the whole page by eye before deciding which I want to find out more about - seems a good idea to me. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon >The Don Petter entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Yeah, that would work. Well, we probably cancel out on that one! But I don't see that you get any more images showing in a window than before, as the white space to accomodate the info when you do hover is still there taking up just the same area? Don. The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >>The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >accomodate the info when you do hover is still there taking up just >the same area? The thumbnails are closer together than they used to be. Notice that when you drive the mouse over a thumbnail, the info that pops up comes very close to the thumbnail below. It's the same info that used to be there, but it used to have more vertical space so as not to crowd the thumbnail below. Now, when you do hover the mouse, you are zeroing in on one thumbnail, and you really don't care about the rest, so crowding the thumbnail below it is not a problem. I am, frankly, just a little envious of whoever thought of that design for the interface. >The Don Petter entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >I am, frankly, just a little envious of whoever thought of that design >for the interface. I hear it is stolen from the look of Windows Live, if you know what that is (I don't). Don. The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >>The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >I hear it is stolen from the look of Windows Live, if you know what >that is (I don't). I don't know what that is, either. User interfaces are one of the toughest things to get 'right', and even when you get it right, it's seldom 'right' for everyone. >>Well, we probably cancel out on that one! But I don't see that you get >>any more images showing in a window than before, as the white space to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I am, frankly, just a little envious of whoever thought of that design >for the interface. In general I expect this is an improvement for the majority of users, but for me it is a step backward. I frequently look up images for common things (i.e. for which there are a large number of hits) and then I want to choose one whose original is large in terms of pixels - because I want to snarf a copy for further "processing" in some way or another. For example, I recently had occasion to want a large specimen of <google images on "Laughing Cavalier"> so that I could substitute the visage with that of a local honoree and then present him with a high quality 8 by 10 framed print of same. To select such an image today involves more than a quick eyeballing of the screen. I have to hover my mouse over each thumbnail in order to select the best candidate. But maybe that's an unusual and highly specialised usage. On the other hand - maybe not. Jitze In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: >>>Well, we probably cancel out on that one! But I don't see that you get >>>any more images showing in a window than before, as the white space to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >is large in terms of pixels - because I want to snarf a copy >for further "processing" in some way or another. If it's a frequent problem you can probably (depending on your browser) create your own style sheet, to display things as you want them. Also don't neglect the Size option in Advanced Image Search. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: >>In general I expect this is an improvement for the majority of >>users, but for me it is a step backward. I frequently look up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Also don't neglect the Size option in Advanced Image Search. Aaah. I had never looked in the advanced option for images. That certainly culls the results to a manageable set of good candidates. Jitze Mike Barnes: >> Also don't neglect the Size option in Advanced Image Search. Jitze Couperus: > Aaah. I had never looked in the advanced option for images. That > certainly culls the results to a manageable set of good candidates. For a long time I have seen the size option also presented as a set of links on the results page. It's helpful, but the three choices presented aren't enough for useful filtering in some cases. Presenting the size under each image is useful (and the site, for that matter, so I can see which images come from the same site). I haven't seen the new presentation yet, but I can tell already that I won't like it. SignatureMark Brader "In general, it is safe and legal to Toronto kill your children and their children." msb@vex.net -- POSIX manual, quoted by Thomas Koenig My text in this article is in the public domain. > I haven't seen the new presentation yet, but I can tell >already that I won't like it. Attaboy! Don. >Mike Barnes: >>> Also don't neglect the Size option in Advanced Image Search. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It's helpful, but the three choices presented aren't enough for useful >filtering in some cases. [snip] The size options are very useful. It would be nice also to be able to ask for 'at least Medium', to get both Medium and Large showing together. At the moment, if this is what you want, you either need to do two separate runs or have all the clutter of the small sizes by asking for All Image Sizes. Don. [snip] >>Well, we probably cancel out on that one! But I don't see that you get >>any more images showing in a window than before, as the white space to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >there, but it used to have more vertical space so as not to crowd the >thumbnail below. [snip] I am not trying to prolong any argument over this, but it may depend on browser and/or screen resolution? I still get three rows of thumbnails, just as I did before. In fact, if I ask for small images, I _still_ only get three rows even though the thumbnails are much smaller and there would be room for at least four. (There is over an inch of blank space at the bottom of the window.) Did small images have small thumbnails before? I can't remember. Maybe this is another change, or maybe I've never bothered to ask for 'small' in practice. Don. The Don Petter entity posted thusly: >[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >smaller and there would be room for at least four. (There is over an >inch of blank space at the bottom of the window.) I run at 1280*1024. The thumbnails are definitely closer together vertically. The same info is shown when you hover the mouse, as used to be shown all the time, yet the text crowds the picture below in some cases (depends, I think, on the vertical size of the two thumbnails). >Did small images have small thumbnails before? I can't remember. Maybe >this is another change, or maybe I've never bothered to ask for >'small' in practice. I don't know. I have never felt the need to customized it. On Jan 24, 10:03 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: >You aren't going to like this any more than I do, but it seems to me the > only power on earth which could at present offer an effective challenge > to Google's unaccountable attack on Usenet is Microsoft. Well, Yahoo, > too. Can either be got to understand the Cinderella medium's potential? I'm glad somebody else recognizes that Google is out to co-opt Usenet! Usenet is too important to have this happen to it. It can never be replaced by blogs or Web-site-specific message boards. Usenet is still the purest implementation of freedom of speech on the Internet. Although Google has made the Usenet archive available and given us some fantastic search tools to probe it, we shouldn't trade away ease of basic browsing, reading, and posting. We need a forum to act as a clearinghouse for organized pushback to Google. Although there is google.public.support.general, maybe there should be a newsgroup specifically devoted to Google Groups, say google.public.usenet or something like that. Any thoughts? -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org On Jan 24, 4:13 pm, mail...@cpacker.org wrote: > >You aren't going to like this any more than I do, but it seems to me the > > only power on earth which could at present offer an effective challenge [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > purest > implementation of freedom of speech on the Internet. That someone was me. See http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/e4c9ce77b418034b (I had posted my old short link to this in the first post; however, it appears makeashorterlink.com is no more.) > Although Google has made the Usenet archive available and given us some > fantastic search tools to probe it, we shouldn't trade away ease of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that. > Any thoughts? I suppose. I would like to give Google some feedback, but I haven't found how. Andrew Usher The Andrew Usher entity posted thusly: >On Jan 24, 4:13 pm, mail...@cpacker.org wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >I suppose. I would like to give Google some feedback, but I haven't >found how. http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact=1 select 'Other' select 'Send praise' (just kidding, there's another choice) Or, if you don't want a response, http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=cf_noresponse > Well, Yahoo, too. Given the way Yahoo groups is a worse perversion of Usenet than Google groups, that can't be an effective challenge. > MikeLylewrites: > > Well, Yahoo, too.Given the way Yahoo groups is a worse perversion of Usenet than Google > groups, that can't be an effective challenge. I was thinking of their market power, not of their strange little non-Usenet. If they and M$ were to provide good Usenet interfaces, and news servers, Google Groups would have to go along or go under. While the ultimate question for users is really the survival of news servers, the immediate problem for them is presumably that a good newsreader must be client-based and so inevitably limit commercial opportunities; but creative thinking could get round that. All these companies got where they are by creative thinking of one kind and another: it's a pity that they've all suffered the deadening effect which so often follows getting big. The alternative is, I suppose, for groups of users to set up and support Usenet servers as a long-term project: more n.i.n. and a.i.o.e lookalikes, please. Nice idea, but. . . SignatureMike. > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message > list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this > feature! I get the tree okay by default both in Opera (at home) and in Firefox (at the office). >From google.public.support.general I learned that there's supposed to be a link "More options" that lets you turn on the tree. However, on Opera when I click on it the only toggle I see is for font -- fixed vs. proportional. And in Firefox -- and Explorer for that matter, the link doesn't even show! This is clearly a gross bug which Google will fix shortly, I presume. -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org mailbox@cpacker.org filted: >>From google.public.support.general I learned that there's supposed to >be a link "More options" that lets you turn on the tree. However, on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >show! >This is clearly a gross bug which Google will fix shortly, I presume. That depends in great part upon your definition of "fix"....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > mailbox@cpacker.org filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That depends in great part upon your definition of "fix"....r Not to mention "shortly". Their vocabulary contains no word carrying the sense of urgency of "mañana". SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Mike Lyle filted: >> mailbox@cpacker.org filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Not to mention "shortly". Their vocabulary contains no word carrying the >sense of urgency of "mañana". But twenty or more for "snow job"....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message > list' which is unintutitve and it's obvious Google wants to HIDE this > feature! Stop using Google groups, it is as simple as that. Borek Signaturehttp://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=pH-calculator http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode http://www.bpp.com.pl/?left=dysleksja&right=dysleksja http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl > What the hell is this?? Google has changed their interface again, and > there is no more 'View as tree' option, it's now called 'Show message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Andrew Usher Yeah, I agree with you here. I'm a longtime Google(r) user and whle I try'n'give 'em beneift of the doubt, this is getting ridiculous ----------------------- Desperate Housewives fan till the day I DIE! & beyond, and bed, and bath |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.