Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Sep 2013 23:12 UTC

With this release we've created a modern experience - one that is faster, cleaner and more visually appealing. We believe that search can be beautiful as well as functional and efficient. With that as our goal, we evaluated fonts, spacing, color, visual scan patterns, the search box and even the underlying code.

My problem with this and recent moves by Google: when I do a regular search, I do not want my search results to be spammed by news, picture, and video results. Bing seems to follow in Google's footsteps by adding irrelevant crap to search results for the sake of looking cool, but at the cost of usability.

I mean, check this screenshot. How much of the page is reserved for actual search results, and not pictures, info boxes, news items, and god knows what else?

Exactly: none.

Permalink for comment 572358
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: so which engine?
by sb56637 on Wed 18th Sep 2013 04:37 UTC in reply to "so which engine?"
Member since:

It depends on your criteria.

In the sense of the best search "engine" strictly speaking, nobody can hold a candle to Google. Its results are still uncannily relevant, thorough, and varied.

However, in terms of presentation of search results, I agree with others that Google has regressed considerably as of late. My personal pet peeve has to do with the link to cached results. It used to always be in the same horizontal location for all results. Now it requires clicking on a little down arrow that is immediately after the URL (which varies in length, so the location is no longer consistent) and then clicking on the popup menu item.

DuckDuckGo has a nice presentation, but its results, like those of Bing, still leave a lot to be desired. Google seems to be the only one that has figured out giving higher priority to the root index page of a top level domain instead of a random subpage as the first result.

Reply Parent Score: 4