Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 23:28 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Permalink for comment 534010
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-22
The article includes whitespace, navigation elements and even the browser as "ADs", that's a very shifty move to artificially increase the supposedly-bad area.
The comparison with "old" Google proves the point, by including a big area of whitespace as part of the search results, and not showing the browser. And the search terms are different, so actual results are not compared for accuracy.
Also, the ads are usually relevant to your search, so don't think they can simply be dismissed like random flashing ads next to unrelated web contents, e.g.: an airline ad above this very OSNews article!
A more honest comparison would be:
- In old Google, without scrolling I can see 7 ranked results and 2 sponsored results.
- In recent Google, without scrolling I can see 5 ranked results and 3 sponsored results. But there are also navigation items, which can help me easily filter results by different criteria to quickly get better results.
So I don't think Google has become as useless as the article implies. Maybe the article could have proved its point with less impact but more honesty; but how can I trust anything in there when I see such glaring spin?