Google has revamped its image search service, rolling out a spruced-up interface and a new breed of image ad meant to dovetail with "organic" results. Designed to "make it easy to look at more images at once," the new interface uses a tiled layout that eliminates all that white space that turned up on the old version of Google …
I just typed in a suitably 'rude' search term into image search and expected to see up-to 1000 'rude bits' on a single scrollable page but all I got was the old layout with only twenty rude bits!
I hope my 5000% rude bit increase happens soon!
*I suck at maths (the math) - I hope that 5000% the correct rude bit increase! If not I'm sure one of you will hit reply to this post and take the piss! (Or give me a basic math(s) lesson!)
RE: Not fair!
"*I suck at maths (the math) - I hope that 5000% the correct rude bit increase! If not I'm sure one of you will hit reply to this post and take the piss! (Or give me a basic math(s) lesson!)"
Well, 20 images per page is 100% of the currently displayed number.
That makes 100 images per page, 500% of the currently displayed number. A 400% increase.
1000 images per page is therefore 5000% of the currently displayed number or a 4900% increase.
See, as well as getting into fights with people, you can actually learn stuff here in the comments section too!
Thank you anon person!
Google Images' new design is just more of the counter-intuitive web 2.0 garbage you see on today's websites. Google images was just fine, now it's a single page of huge loading thumbnails, and an extremely cluttered design.
I agree - image search was good for general search - but that relied on you being able to see which website each image was from as you scanned the results. This has greatly lessened how useful it is.
it came from where?!
If I'm searching for pictures of a tree, for example, it's useful to see that the image in the search result came from trees_of_the_word.com rather than my_pointless_blog.com as the former is much more likely to have more of the same whilst the latter is hardly likely to.
highlight the image for the URL of the site.
Paris, coz she came from many sites.
Re: highlight the image for the URL of the site
...a requirement which is awkward and time-consuming, as the popup obscures adjacent images (sometimes completely), and takes time to do so (in the name of not triggering it by accident?).
It's ruined the speed and simplicity of the original experience.
At least it doesn't kick in on my netbook ;)
So, when the ridicule died down, Google actually is redesigning its site to look more like Bing? First the helper search pane, and now images.
Even The pup has dumped the Bingle. (or was it the other way round... can't be really sure).
Paris, coz she wouldn't mind Bingle occasionally as long as there is enuf Pups in between.
Is Google my decision engine now?
Google used to be all about a simple interface that just gave you results and did it quickly.
I was pretty sure that worked out well for them.
Time's a' changin'?
A bit rubbish really
The various dimensions of the images now make the screen display looked cluttered and clunky. The old design was maybe a bit long in the tooth, but it sat easier on the eye.
why the googlenlarge script on userscript stopped working a while back.
I preferred its approach too.
(insert paris gag)
Where Bing leads...
How times have changed....
Now how about integrating it with Google HTTPS so I don't have to leave secured space
loading all those images through HTTPS as well. I imagine that 90% of sites out there don't have HTTPS access to the vast majority of their images.
Compare to the old Images, it's crap.
Sure, there might be less whitespace but why hide the details of the image, the image dimensions, url etc?
So I have to hover over each image to see the size and make sure it's not going to take me to www.sheep-in-wellies.xxx or whatever?
If it ain't broken don't fix it.
Even easier to leech free images from copyright holders or licensees!
But of course, google don't store images, they're simply an indexing service. An argument that worked so well for another well known site.
I\m getting more options in the side bar but I'm still getting the old layout for the results...
Same here , is this a google.com thing rather than google.co.uk ?
If only it could exclude decoy images...
If you shut off filtering and search for "Anna Chapman," nearly all results will have nothing to do with Anna Chapman...er, or so I've heard....
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64