Username or EmailPassword
What kind of asshat uses a proprietary Gtk-based editor that doesn't even have as many features as gedit?
You want to start an editor war of the back of an article about URLs? really
Google have neat fix. Next time try g.co for Google URLs and goo.gl for any random URL
And, how exactly would shaving off a handful of characters from the domain name help with the extremely long part of the url after the domain name?
Are you from past or just trolling. Do you know how this works? Try this URL form this website
Thom isn't ranting about the length of the URL. He is ranting about query format in the URL.
Hyperlinks eliminate the need to post links in plaintext.
I understand, but these are variables used for specific purposes (stats, referal payouts, etc.). If you don't want to pass on that information, you can just paste something shorter like this: http://google.com/search?q=something
And if you bother to click the second link (which I did), you'd notice that all it does is shave a few characters off the domain, it doesn't touch the parts after the domain.
Who's the idiot now?
It's not a neat fix. In general using short URLs is bad, since they obscure the target.
Suggestion: Try the preview function of tinyurl.com
It lets the user go to tinyurl's site first and see the full url before proceeding to the target.
It makes it a longer process but it helps those that are suspicious of using the interwebs.
And you still get the short URL to post or email.
Does someone with a lot of time on their hand want to sit down and analyze the meanings of the different parts of the url? Could be interesting to figure out what is so important to Google anyway
And chop out all the uneeded parts. The query url will still work after you do that.
http://www.google.com/#q=fiona+apple+riding+a+unicorn Edited 2012-04-18 14:55 UTC
Now, why the hell did they change the normal questionmark (?) to a pound sign (#)? It used to work (a couple of years) before.
"Now, why the hell did they change the normal questionmark (?) to a pound sign (#)? It used to work (a couple of years) before."
AnyoneEB and I already commented on why, but maybe it wasn't clear enough.
The exception of course is for data after '#', since from the early days of netscape it was used to jump to different "bookmarks" in the web page. It never generated a postback.
When I search from duck duck go's engine, I get urls like this:
Which is obviously better than google's monstrosity, however it suggests that you might have edited the duckduckgo.com url yourself, in which case you should have given google the same benefit. The following works fine for example:
Doing the same queries from the firefox search box yielded these for me:
So my question is: did you edit the duck duck go url by hand? If not where did you get it from?
* Side note:
My duckduckgo just leaves a ?q= param, looks like the &t= comes from when ddg is integrated in software to track user base coming from that particular place.
Good to see you're actually using it though.
Well that was a good catch!
It is a Linux Mint customization, and though it hadn't occurred to me, this is how the Linux Mint project gets to profit share from it's users searches.
I guess anyone clicking on my earlier link and then clicking on ads might well contribute ad proceeds to Linux Mint!
Thom, you need to get this profit sharing arrangement for osnews! (...not that I personally click on ads)
I did not edit the URLs in any way.
This happened to me only on a few occasions and maybe it was just a fluke at those times, but there have been times where I sent someone a google query url and it did not return the same results that I saw. What I *think* happens is that if two people are signed into their google/gmail accounts, google tries to adapt queries to your personal preferences/click history so the same query would produce two different results but that is completely anecdotal.
The specific example I am thinking of was that I sent someone a google query of 'Groovy'. My first result is the Groovy scripting language. I can't even remember what the first result was on the other person's search but it was not for the scripting language Groovy. It was like 3 or 4 links down for him.
I've definitely seen cases when different people see different results. I don't know this for a fact, but I always assumed it was a deliberate design to provide localized and/or context sensitive results. It's possible it was a bug, but I don't think so, and for the record neither of us were signed in.
There are two reasons for this.
The first is the so-called "filter bubble" phenomenon. Google delivers content ranked by an order of what they think you want to see. And there are presumably more factors taken into acccount than just your click or search history when you're logged in (cookies, geolocation, language settings, ISP, ... endless possibilities).
A simple explanation of this has been published by the Duckduckgo people at http://dontbubble.us in order to raise more awareness to this problem.
The second reason is obviously just an updated search index. The web content changes constantly and so does Google's search index. If you look at your search results a day later, you may also get different results.
I'd assume also third reason: the index and its results not being strictly deterministic of sorts - operating on a best effort basis within preset time delays, momentary availability of nearby resources, and such.
The siblings explain pretty well why bubbling happens, but if you want to be aware of it, there's a Chrome extension that displays other possible search results for the same query from different locations: http://bobble.gtisc.gatech.edu/software.html .
I totally agree with Thom. Those URLs are retarded.
And I personally don't like transparent search customisation; I want to get the same results no matter what account, or machine, or location I do the search from. Indeed, filter bubble is a sick invention.
What do you mean? Its the best thing since sliced bread. I'm happy to be finally getting the results that I want even if the name is generic.
On the other hand, I am aware that everything I do online influences what I see, so I make sure to keep things separate. That is why I always have 3 browsers open at work(programmer) and I never sign into facebook unless in private mode.
Nitpicking I suppose, but it isn't a query string. Google is shoving everything into the fragment portion of the URI. Not sure why they are doing that, kinda silly.
It\'s not just the query URLs. It\'s also the search result URLs.
Let\'s say I search for \"The FreeBSD Project\". As one of the first results, I get this:
\"The FreeBSD Project\"
Okay, looks fine. The associated URL is this:
But the real URL of the search result should be this:
This is a fully qualified name including protocol, server and trailing /, which is fine. That is the information that I consider \"the result of the web search\".
Let\'s assume I want to send that search result to a friend, like \"I found this item you\'ve been asking me for, look at it and see if it helps\", which one of the results do you think is better?
Also note that in this example, I\'m not supposed to actuactually open the result (in a tab or a new window); instead I just \"copy link address\" which should be sufficient. I\'m also not supposed to look at the status line which displays http://www.freebsd.org/ (which is not what \"copy link address\" will contain).
It can be even worse. Let\'s say I\'m searching for some topic and find a PDF file which I consider a valid search result.
Its name, shown in blue \"link text\":
[PDF] System i Roadmap and i5OS V6R1 Preview - ISV - 1-08-08
The \"copy link address\" function of the browser gives this:
With the \"The FreeBSD Project\" example above, I had the opportunity of copying the \"green address\" below the google result link. With this example, I don\'t have even that anymore.
Reason? The real URL to the search result is \"abbreviated\". The green text reads:
For some shorter results, it may appear like this (from one of the next results):
This is something I could easily copy & paste, even though it misses protocol and server. But that\'s not a big deal here.
However, and that is my final statement according to those two examples, the \"copy link address\" should provide the target of the search operation, no \"google-affected\" URL with information that may contain data that harms privacy or security.
It has worked that way in the past. Why has it been disimproved so badly?
off-topic: I went into the database to fix your comment = you used italics for the links, but the close tags were attached to the URLs by our system :/. Fail.
The reason result links are not direct link is to allow google to track which results are used.
Sure, on one hand it can be bothersome and be despicable tracking. But on the other it allows then to make conjecture between search terms and related interesting results.
Note: Nothing stops them of making it more user friendly.
Retarded, Google can get the localization information from the heather and IP. Why the need of all the extra params? Edited 2012-04-18 23:53 UTC
"Retarded, Google can get the localization information from the heather and IP. Why the need of all the extra params?"
I won't delve into whether it's retarded or nay, but tagging extra tracking params to a URL allows a website to track sessions in browsers that would otherwise disable cookies. Furthermore it allows websites to unambiguously track navigation between pages in a session. Also, because google controls adsense/doubleclick/google analytics/youtube/etc networks, it could enable them to track sessions across 3rd party domains as well (that is scary).
* Note I don't actually know what google tracks this way, but I assume it tracks everything it can.
I guess one WTFLOL deserved another WTFLOL.
I'm looking at features of that editor and comparing it with vim: check, check, minimap - that would be kinda hard to do in text mode, check, check, all check. Edited 2012-04-19 08:24 UTC