f u google image search redesign

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

how is it an "upgrade" that i now have to roll over search results to see their dimensions and URL?

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:12 (eighteen years ago)

Your search - when did google jump the shark - did not match any documents.

― Rockist Scientist, Hippopoptimist (RSLaRue), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:20 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah I noticed this the other day, the hell is it supposed to prove?

― Trayce (trayce), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:23 (eighteen years ago)

I agree, it's not at all user friendly.

― It's a hard world for little things... (papa november), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:23 (eighteen years ago)

I was bitching about to some friends the other day, and was met with a bunch of "oh, did they change it? now that you mention it, I guess something does seem a little different...", which had the (unintentional? I'm not so sure) consequence of making me feel like an enormous dork for noticing what I thought was an incredibly obvious and incredibly stupid change. glad to see that other people are as bothered by this as I am.

― Bernard Snowy (sixteen sergeants), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:29 (eighteen years ago)

I noticed it immediately and hate it.

― don weiner (don weiner), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:31 (eighteen years ago)

I hate the fact that you can't automatically see the images that also include a "see other images at suchandsuch.com" link under them.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:35 (eighteen years ago)

If they're going to improve something, how about a better size-filter than "Small, Medium, or Large?" (Like X<480 pixels)

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:36 (eighteen years ago)

i blame china

― timmy tannin (pompous), Monday, 29 January 2007 03:37 (eighteen years ago)

i bitched on a google blog :(

― UART variations (ex machina), Monday, 29 January 2007 05:50 (eighteen years ago)

Yeh, this is shit. I need images around 300x300 and I need to roll over eveything? Rubbish.

― Johnney B English (stigoftdump), Monday, 29 January 2007 09:00 (eighteen years ago)

Having looked at the frankly useless google feedback forums, the best advice I could find there was to go and use the Yahoo image search which is in the old format.

― Johnney B English (stigoftdump), Monday, 29 January 2007 09:35 (eighteen years ago)

Wow, what a rubbish idea.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 29 January 2007 10:47 (eighteen years ago)

sucks

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 10:50 (eighteen years ago)

Since Google makes their APIs public, it couldn't be too difficult to write a front-end that mimics the old GIS.

This guy did one in C#...
http://www.codeproject.com/cs/library/google_image_search_api.asp

― Edward III (edward iii), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

web 2.0 strikes again!

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

wonder if they'll ever change their shitty logo (too recognisable i guess)

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:40 (eighteen years ago)

this is annoying. I thought maybe I had accidently changed my prefs. I still think I'll keep using it as I'd rather deal with less-than-ideal google than another search engine any day.

― Ms Misery (MissMiseryTX), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:40 (eighteen years ago)

at least their shitty logo doesn't make it harder to use their website

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

Their logo is by now classic, becase it's their logo.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:43 (eighteen years ago)

from a branding perspective, it would be stupid for them to change their logo.

― Ms Misery (MissMiseryTX), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

What's wrong with their logo? It's their name, it's easy to read, it's primary colours. I can't see how that can be objectionable.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

well of course

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

one suggestion i read was "turn off javascript." on reflection, not a bad idea.

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

javascript is the new frames

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

Many strong brands change their logos and most refine them. I seriously doubt that altering their logo would do anything to their brand.

― don weiner (don weiner), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

Grr, that's fucking stupid. So much for Google being packed with geniuses.

― stet (stet), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

refine I could see happening. I like that they alter it every now and then for holidays.

― Ms Misery (MissMiseryTX), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:48 (eighteen years ago)

does anyone know how to switch javascript on and off in safari and firefox using key commands?

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:49 (eighteen years ago)

What's wrong with their logo? It's their name, it's easy to read, it's primary colours. I can't see how that can be objectionable.

i don't think it's THAT easy to read, relatively. but then i hate 99% of logos using serifed typeface.
i don't like use of all three primary colours in a logo either (see also equally bad ebay), hard to explain why but it just doesn't say style to me.
so that's why i object.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:50 (eighteen years ago)

I seriously doubt that altering their logo would do anything to their brand.

it would be interesting to see them go through such a process tho. they're dominating the market and have done for a while so there's no real need to smarten up on that basis. but at the same time given such dominance you might expect a more professional looking logo (lose the drop shadow at least!).

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

do you think there's something to be said for erring on the side of ugly in cases like this? most of what is considered graphically good about their website is pretty ugly... but it works really well.

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, you remember a time before Google (and know what serifed typefaces are) = you are not their target market.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

which is why this redesign is so baffling to me

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

'target market' is an irrelevant term re Google i think Andrew.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:57 (eighteen years ago)

Um, yeah, kind of.

― Allyzay doesnt get into the monkeys or vindications (allyzay), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:57 (eighteen years ago)

So is 'professional' :)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 29 January 2007 14:58 (eighteen years ago)

how? they are a huge professional organisation!

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:01 (eighteen years ago)

professional? aren't they supposed to spend %20 of their work-time tending the hydroponic facility?

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

and doing segway time trials around the car park

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

i would do that while tending some hydroponics

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

whatever it is they are doing, they are doing it with javascript off

― friday on the porch (lfam), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

http://achewood.com/comic.php?date=05172006

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:09 (eighteen years ago)

OTM (at least yahoo had the sense to stick to one colour)

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:12 (eighteen years ago)

What would they stand to benefit? Who doesn't take Google seriously because of their logo?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

The Achewood kind of banks up my point - we associate those things with IBM because that's IBM's logo, not because of any attribute of those three letters.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:20 (eighteen years ago)

IBM stands for INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.
Google is a made-up number that only nerds know about that has now become a verb, meaning they ought to go ahead and give up on the TM.

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:24 (eighteen years ago)

What would they stand to benefit?

It's more that we would benefit, in that future generations will not think of us as 'nimrods'.

Who doesn't take Google seriously because of their logo?

It's more just that 'we' (meaning me and any people who agree with me, if they are out there) don't take their logo seriously.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:29 (eighteen years ago)

All they need to do is switch their typeface to bauhaus and they will be with the times.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:30 (eighteen years ago)

could've been worse...

rejected 1999 proposal
http://base58.com/ilx/googlecomicsans.gif

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 29 January 2007 15:39 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 55 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

CONDIMENTS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

― elmo argonaut (allocryptic), Wednesday, 31 January 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

you can do the FF one through about:config too

um... how?

text file method not working here, possibly because I'm using some shonky (portable) FF version right now, I have tried putting user.js in normal and default profile locations too :/

― fandango (fandango), Saturday, 3 February 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

oh fuck it, being lazy. will find out.

― fandango (fandango), Saturday, 3 February 2007 12:06 (eighteen years ago)

AAAAARGH!!!

okay, today I learned about strings and values but forgot about domain names entirely FFSFSFSFSFSFS

it's http://images.google.CO.UK from my search bar... all is well again.

― fandango (fandango), Saturday, 3 February 2007 12:52 (eighteen years ago)

FUCK YOU GOOGLE IMAGE REDESIGN!!!!

― fandango (fandango), Saturday, 3 February 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

seriously

― UART variations (ex machina), Saturday, 3 February 2007 22:20 (eighteen years ago)

eleven years pass...

this fucking sucks

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:17 (seven years ago)

otoh i'm pleasantly surprised that a GIS thread specifically complaining about a redesign already existed.

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:18 (seven years ago)

I just use bing image search instead now. Seems to work OK.

― obnoxious pun (ultros ultros-ghali), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:33 (seven years ago)

for some reason you can't go to the full image that easily anymore, which is really really bad for what it's supposed to do...

― Ludo, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:40 (seven years ago)

yea it sucks

― marcos, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:40 (seven years ago)

that's the whole point of the redesign. in order to get to the "real" image, now you have to go to the hosting page and find it there. in theory, this is a good idea because it'll boost traffic for websites that have interesting images (i guess) and maybe give them a cut of that lucrative google ad $$. in practice, though, frequently the image you're looking for is difficult to find on the host page, or the image is there but it's locked up in some sort of HTML/CSS shenanigan that makes it difficult/impossible to find the full size version. there's also all sorts of inconsistencies with the full image sizes not being the ones that GIS suggested.

I just use bing image search instead now. Seems to work OK.
this is a good idea, thanks. RIP GIS though

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:44 (seven years ago)

also pinterest spam has made GIS worse and worse the last few years

― scoff walker (diamonddave85), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:45 (seven years ago)

now when i search for the maxell tape blown away guy, i have to click like 3 more times to find a suitably large image. COME ON

xpost yeah, it's been sliding downhill for years. am i wrong to remember some sort of golden age where it just worked really well nearly all the time?

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:46 (seven years ago)

result of a licensing arrangement w/ getty i think?

it's stupid. didn't they win a fucking fair use case about this a while back (perfect 10 vs amazon?) a search engine reproducing images, even if it uses the entire image, can constitute a fair use since it is serving an essentially transformative purpose?

― marcos, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:47 (seven years ago)

Yeah, realized a week or so ago that I had to right-click "copy image location" and open it in a new tab. Until now I just figured that it had always been this way and the other way had just been a dream.

― how's life, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:47 (seven years ago)

You can also, at least in chrome, right click and "open image in new tab" or "save image as".

― Evan, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 16:58 (seven years ago)

i would be totally ok with opening in a new tab if it worked consistently, but in my experience i often end up looking at a much smaller version of the actual image. and then sometimes, it does work and i'm looking at the original image in a new tab. i don't know. it's just so inconsistent and clunky now, noticeably more so than a couple weeks ago.

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 17:09 (seven years ago)

Make sure you've clicked on the image before right clicking it. Then right click that larger version, not the one that is part of the grid.

― Evan, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 18:43 (seven years ago)

ffx: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-view-image

chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-search-view-image/hgngncnljacgakaiifjcgdnknaglfipo

greasemonkey: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/devunt/make-gis-great-again/master/gis-vib.user.js

― mookieproof, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 18:46 (seven years ago)

niiiiice, thanks! it must be fun to think of solutions instead of complaining about shit! i should look into that

i'm kinda surprised google approved that chrome extension though!

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:06 (seven years ago)

superb !

― In space, pizza sends out for YOU (Ste), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 21:14 (seven years ago)

You can also, at least in chrome, right click and "open image in new tab" or "save image as".

yeah this seems to work in firefox too.

― new noise, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 21:52 (seven years ago)

four months pass...

welp

― mookieproof, Friday, 20 July 2018 23:38 (seven years ago)

google itself is also worse
i can't prove this

― Karl Malone, Friday, 20 July 2018 23:45 (seven years ago)

welp what? what am I missing

― El Tomboto, Saturday, 21 July 2018 00:31 (seven years ago)

https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/90iv2a/whats_going_on_with_google_image_search

― mookieproof, Saturday, 21 July 2018 00:48 (seven years ago)

maybe you haven't gotten it yet because they know better

― mookieproof, Saturday, 21 July 2018 00:49 (seven years ago)

one year passes...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-images-restored/

― mookieproof, Saturday, 14 September 2019 04:45 (six years ago)

i feel like i complain about how bad GIS has gotten almost every day, and yet i feel like i'm holding back 90% of how disappointing it is

― Sally Jessy (Karl Malone), Saturday, 14 September 2019 04:57 (six years ago)

was there a change in GIS? I don't even see it.

― Sassy Boutonnière (ledriver), Saturday, 14 September 2019 05:18 (six years ago)

goddammit

― Sally Jessy (Karl Malone), Saturday, 14 September 2019 05:19 (six years ago)

three years pass...

the first fifteen results for "early doors"

https://i.imgur.com/OZDjKBR.png

we all really want to buy a stock image of an ancient door, right? that's what everyone uses google image search for - to find stock images to purchase!!

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 5 February 2023 01:49 (two years ago)

for fuck's sake, show me some rando's horrible iphone photo of an ancient door they found on vacation, this is not hard

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 5 February 2023 01:49 (two years ago)

insidious redesign: at some point over the last year or two, they took away the "advanced search" link. advanced search still exists, you just have to google it. they don't want people to even know that advanced search exists. i'm surprised they still offer it in a hidden way

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 5 February 2023 01:54 (two years ago)

if only there was a way i could compensate google so that they could stop sucking ass - maybe i could just offer for them to have free access to everything i say in my emails and sell it to advertisers and anyone else who has extra money and wants my psychometric data. i would trade all of that for the fucking advanced search link to be brought back up from the dungeon

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 5 February 2023 01:56 (two years ago)

you could try duckduckgo, then again...

https://i.imgur.com/UyaYLcF.png

― corrs unplugged, Monday, 6 February 2023 14:53 (two years ago)

I thought, surely this is an ip thing. If I search the "early doors" on my US duckduckgo, I'll get Jim Morrison, circa. 1965, right?

Nope. Same exact thing as corrs' post.

― pplains, Monday, 6 February 2023 16:03 (two years ago)

Feel sorry for both of you. Meanwhile I have already purchased a dozen medium resolution stock images for less than $900

― Karl Malone, Monday, 6 February 2023 16:51 (two years ago)

The Russians convincing me that I'm not crazy.

https://i.imgur.com/xFLoAil.png

― pplains, Monday, 6 February 2023 16:59 (two years ago)

i do agree. its pretty annoying the redesign. any alternative? even the image results have decreased for that change

― CerebralCaustic, Monday, 6 February 2023 17:57 (two years ago)

i have lied, on accident. my search wasn't "early doors" (with or without quotes") - it was "ancient doors"

― Karl Malone, Monday, 6 February 2023 18:10 (two years ago)

your honor, i have lied on accident

― Karl Malone, Monday, 6 February 2023 18:13 (two years ago)

two years pass...

not actually about google image search (which does of course ever-increasingly suck)

but also i am now going to random sites and getting pop-ups suggesting that i log in -- to sites that don't require logins -- with my google id

how do i stop this

― mookieproof, Friday, 1 August 2025 01:35 (five months ago)

My favorite is the site on which we publish our digital magazines, in which we already have a login since it's a paid service, that still offers a Google login popup each time.

― pplains, Friday, 1 August 2025 02:32 (five months ago)

It almost makes me want to say YES REMEMBER MY PASSWORDS!! I GIVE IN!! … but then I don’t.

― sarahell, Friday, 1 August 2025 14:07 (five months ago)

xps aiui those sites are choosing to use google logins (because it's convenient rather than making another password etc.) and thus you can't do anything about it. You could block the popup element (with, say, ublock) but may affect google logins elsewhere? I dunno. I see this all the time now and it bugs me too.

― Kim Kimberly, Friday, 1 August 2025 15:12 (five months ago)

https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/03/29/those-obnoxious-sign-in-with-google-prompts/

looks like you can block it on the Google side in account settings, but I've been looking at just adding a rule to my content blocker

― slowly imploding (mh), Friday, 1 August 2025 15:20 (five months ago)

That's helpful info thanks.

― Kim Kimberly, Friday, 1 August 2025 15:28 (five months ago)

<3 ilx

― sarahell, Friday, 1 August 2025 16:27 (five months ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.