from the how-about-you-provide-search-results-and-leave-my-system-choices-alone dept.
The Mighty Buzzard (no not our Buzzard, This Buzzard), aka ElReg, reports that Google is serving up ancient renditions of its search engine to users of "ancient" browsers. They also tried this with Gmail, but finally just gave up and refused to support old browsers.
The old version of Search still delivers modern "hits", but the layout is decidedly old school.
Probably as a stunt, or to prevent having to maintain web page code long since obsolete, the search pages are simply rendered in the way they would have appeared when these older browsers were fresh on the scene. The search entry page looks slightly old, (says 2913), but the search result layout is decidedly old school.
Opera 12, Safari 5 are seeing old version, as well as some other older versions of Windows, including ancient IE 6.0
One user posted screen shots on Google Forums. One shot of Google's Image looking like a refuge from the Pleistocene.
Its not that some of these browsers can't handle the newer Search layout. They worked fine until a day ago. Some browsers (Midori) are also getting the geezer treatment even though Midori handles all the latest web technologies like HTML 5 and CSS3, and is based on fairly recent webkit engine, and had no problems rendering Google's search, or even Bing's more intensive image search.
It appears to be just Google's way of saying its time to move on. Maybe it will backfire. I kind of like the old look.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @10:43PM
This makes me happy. I use User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] to change my user agent on a semi-random basis (at least every time I get a new IP address by resetting my VPN connection) in order to reduce effectiveness of data-stalkers. I've noticed that google serves up drastically diffferent versions of their pages depending my current user agent and frankly I like the older versions because they are much less javascript dependent.
When I use a recent user-agent (like firefox 31 instead of firefox 21) I don't notice any extra functionality, just a slightly newer design aesthetic. And I got no problem with people futzing around with style and design as long as they don't sacrifice functionality. You don't make progress without experimentation. But since I don't seem to be missing out any really new functionality, I'm happy to keep using the light-weight, less stalkery versions.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Kunasou on Monday September 01 2014, @10:53PM
I tested it right now (I don't use google) and in Opera 12 Google has an older interface, better than the new version though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 01 2014, @10:53PM
2913 years old is quite old (the only interpretation that make sense, 2913 being in the future).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by yellowantphil on Monday September 01 2014, @11:27PM
I assume that this news came from the future. It is not reassuring to learn that Google will still be around past the year 2913. But it explains why the summary compares the early 2000s to the Pleistocene.
Also, if someone is using an old browser and refuses to upgrade, it doesn't seem likely that they'll care how dated Google's home page looks. They might even like the old version better.
(Score: 2, Funny) by tempest on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:45AM
It could also be the next Firefox version number.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by NowhereMan on Monday September 01 2014, @11:28PM
This may blow up in their face for a couple of reasons. Firstly it really pisses me off that Google is trying to force people into changing browsers by pissing them off, (hoping to pick up Chrome users probably), and second I don't mind the older look and in fact I kind of like it.
(Score: 4, Funny) by naubol on Monday September 01 2014, @11:32PM
Are you sure the intent is to piss them off? I thought it was a reward for loyalty.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:06AM
There really is no "reward" here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @01:06AM
Why would getting a better interface piss people off?
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:21AM
Because you made the assumption it's better. In many cases, newer pages are just full of irrelevant junk from web coders that can't express their task in a simple as possible manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:52AM
You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Come back after you learn that skill properly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:55AM
They were making a joke, Admiral Aspergers. The point of the joke was that the "older" interface was better thus the user would not be pissed.
Ugh, having to explain a joke...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tooyoung on Monday September 01 2014, @11:32PM
Google, thank you so much for doing this. Your search site used to be great until you mysteriously started to think that you needed to be Bing. Thanks to the engineers for tricking management into providing a back door to good user experience.
(Score: 2, Informative) by richtopia on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:37AM
Same with maps, in opera you can still right click!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:26AM
Yeah, it's great to learn that all you have to do to get back a sane interface to Google services is to use an old browser ... except that these times I rarely use Google services anyway (and yes, the interface had a big part in that, although in part it's also about avoiding to serve all my data to Google), and I'll probably not go back.
Indeed, the only Google service I still use relatively frequently is YouTube.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday September 02 2014, @07:34AM
I agree wholehearthedly.
Google once had a great interface for actual use but not it seems they are focusing on an "experiences", it actually has gotten to the point where I set browsers to specifically block javascript at google.com (but unblock maps.google.com and for the few times I need the javascript I use google.[national-tld]).
I wish google could have a setting for this (akin to their google.com/ncr that sets a cookie to stop forwarding you to a national tld it would be great if they had a google.com/nojs to set a cookie if one wanted a useful interface for those prefering to use massive tabbing and absorbing information rather than wanting an experience)
(urls written without protocol to avoid causing clickable links)
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Tuesday September 02 2014, @04:39PM
Closest I can get to it is:
You "miss out" on the Google Doodles, but really, you aren't missing much. You'll hear about the Doodles from friends, co-workers, news sites anyways. If it sounds like something you want to try, just open Internet Explorer and go to the homepage. Hopefully you'll get a Doodle instead of malware. Cointoss, really.
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Monday September 01 2014, @11:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Monday September 01 2014, @11:52PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Funny) by sjames on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:29AM
I was picturing a dark coffee house with people playing bongos and reciting poetry about the existential angst of not knowing the capital of Argentina.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:54AM
Well, in 2913 that will be the modern slang. (Just sayin...)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by emg on Monday September 01 2014, @11:54PM
If only they'd give us the old search engine to match the old interface, I'd be happy. Google was much better before they made it 'smart' and it began searching for words that might be vaguely similar to the words you typed in, rather than the words you actually searched for.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:04AM
Google was much better before they made it 'smart' and it began searching for words that might be vaguely similar to the words you typed in, rather than the words you actually searched for.
Use these search modifiers:
intext:word -requires an exact match of "word"
allintext:word1 word2 word3 -requires that all words following allintext: be in the search (words before the modifier are still fuzzy-matched).
Sometimes it is easier to just single-quote, like 'word' and that gets you about 95% the same results as using intext:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:50AM
The Verbose option gives you the exact words you request with no monkeying around.
Click that to start or add &tbs=li:1 to the URL.
N.B. They backtracked from a current implementation to try to re-derive the old way.
It is terrible with phrases that use wildcards.
If you use wildcards, then, as the AC said, use the standard search and lots of quote marks.
There's also the "Advanced" Search (which is actually the training wheels model).
http://www.google.com/advanced_search [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Interesting) by evilviper on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:23AM
The one place I'd WANT the old Google layout, in the Links browser, it's still using the latest layout instead of an older version. [twibright.com]
The layout used-to be perfect for text-mode browsers... The search box was the first selectable element on the page, so your focus would go right to that, and you could just start typing once the page loaded. Once they put links to image search and other services at the top, above the search box, those links steal the focus, and you have to navigate down to the search box first, every time the page loads.
Today, duckduckgo's home page isn't perfect, but is far, far less cluttered than Google's, so it's far and away superior, both for text mode browsers and mobile (small screen) browsers.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NowhereMan on Tuesday September 02 2014, @01:08AM
DuckDuckGo is using some javascript now but if you want the plain search page use https://duckduckgo.com/html [duckduckgo.com]. That will take you to the non-javascript page, all it has is the logo and the search field. By default that is the one I use.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:15AM
People still go to the search page to do searches? I thought by this point all browsers let you do it from the url line with a letter and then the search terms, ie, "x soylent" (with g for google, d for duckduckgo, b for bing, w for wikipedia, plus the ability to add new custom ones).
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday September 02 2014, @04:03AM
Doesn't work any better... The image is still hyperlinked, and takes focus on page load.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @04:05AM
used-to be[...]The search box was the first selectable element on the page
Have you tried adding #mn to the URL?
(A browser that allows you to mark a bit of a web page and view the source code for that is awesome. That would be SeaMonkey.)
I almost never see Google's home page.
I type what I want into the address bar.
My starting page is set to a blank (null).
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Funny) by meisterister on Tuesday September 02 2014, @12:31AM
Why are they serving their best experience to the outdated browsers? When will this functionality move to the new ones?
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by number6 on Tuesday September 02 2014, @04:24AM
All my Firefox browsers, no matter ancient or latest version (makes no difference), always report this info about me:
* randomized browser User Agent * randomized browser HTTP Accept Headers * randomized browser Javascript OSCPU String * spoofed ETag 'If-None-Match' Headers * spoofed HTTP 'X-Forwarded-For' Headers * spoofed HTTP 'Via' Headers, etc etc * polluted query strings coming from my browser at all times using 'TrackMeNot' addon * all cross-site requests blocked by 'RequestPolicy' addon * all redirects removed from links using 'Redirect Cleaner' addon * etc, etc
Any website or search engine *needing* to positively fingerprint me before serving their content (else they won't work) CAN GO AND GET FUCKED! ...as far as I'm concerned they are on a mission of raping my privacy on their way to empire-building.
I refuse to be herded and manipulated like a sheep in a paddock and I refuse to accept any part of the electronic digital world if it makes me feel like said animal. I refuse to give away any data about myself to any black-box system (such as Google) without a fight. I do not give permission for my computer's CPU and Memory and Hard Disks to be thrashed hard by bloated piece-of-shit Javascript-infested applications masquerading as websites.
If worst comes to worse, I will disconnect from this electronic world permanently rather than yield to the wolves who are trying hard to control the 'way of seeing' of this game.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:54AM
> All my Firefox browsers, no matter ancient or latest version (makes no difference), always report this info about me:
None of that makes a difference if you don't also change your IP address on a frequent basis.
Google et al just assume that different browsers at the same IP address are in use by family members and treat them as one big stalker target.