Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
"you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time."
Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool.
In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll.
If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily.
As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up.
"So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information."
Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this).
Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
Stopping right here to reminisce for a minute.
When I was a kid, my parents bought me a subscription to MacUser magazine, because I was glued to our old 512. I would read the issues cover to cover. (I have particularly vivid memories of the April 1987 issue, which unveiled the Mac SE, the original Mac II, and the release of Dark Castle.)
Dvorak had a column on the last page of the magazine. It was basically an Andy Rooney routine -- he was a grump who liked to complain about messed-up technology. One of the first of his columns I read (some time in 1986) was a rant about his experiences trying to play ICOM's "Deja Vu", a fairly innovative adventure game with a noir theme.
Dvorak claimed to be unable to master the interface (point-and-click!), and described in great detail his attempts to fumble through the first few rooms. I was 9, and I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever read that involved a computer.
At some point he stopped writing the column, and I lost track of him until I was out of college and suddenly he was a notable tech pundit. That has always seemed strange to me.
Maybe? I'm not sure. I remember Andy Inhatko having the back page for a while, and some other people as well, but I don't remember where those things fall in the timeline w.r.t the merge with MacWorld.
Also, wrt to Dark Castle, were you aware that Return to Dark Castle was released for OS X a couple years ago, runs great on 10.6, includes both original games plus a ton of new levels that full capture the spirit of the originals?
I was! But unfortunately I have not had a Mac since 2000 or so. I should really commandeer my brother's laptop next time he's in town. Maybe over the holidays.
I got modded into a smouldering crater for pointing out that another article was a massive troll.[1] I think I was modded down for the fact that I enjoyed it: despite the fact I was highlighting it was a troll and that people shouldn't take it seriously. Almost everything in tech journalism these days consists of hyperbole or trolling to get maximum hits or, failing that, thinly reworded press releases and superficial reviews to minimize the actual effort required to publish. There are a few exceptions - namely things like the really in-depth SSD reviews conducted by Anandtech which actually had well constructed benchmarks, told you something new and really valuable and actually went and did interviews with major players - but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Bonus points: video of Dvorak admitting he trolls Apple users in his columns.[2]
Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong.
I also agree with him that it's a bad sign when a company seems to be doing things just because their competitors did something similar.
> The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong.
It may be worse for you, but it is better for almost everyone else. Dvorak is getting two things confused here: first, he assumes that because of his special uses cases that aren't supported as well, GIS is overall worse now. Second, he assumes that because a certain Google property is worse, the entire company is headed for doom.
The old version, when you clicked an image it would take you to the page that contained the image and give you some controls at the top like 'view full size'. The page it took you to was fully functional. Now, when you click on the image it takes you to the containing page but it puts the image in an overlay on top of the page blocking the actual page. You can't see the page unless you close the overlay which takes you out of google image search altogether.
I don't think this is better for most people, and it certainly isn't better for me.
The scrolling instead of paging is a u no no in my book. For example I can look at 8 pages of images then quickly jump back to page 2 if I want to. I can't send a link to page 8, or bookmark it, and it breaks other u expectations. Maybe that's ok, but I don't see what gain overcomes those negatives.
You're forgetting a few properties of the new landing page. The image is at its full size, or at least at a much larger size, which is what most people want to see when they arrive at a landing page. In the old version, only a tiny thumbnail was visible. Many pages also don't have the image visible at the top, so this makes it so the image is always visible. So there are a few things that at least argue in favor of the new version.
Scrolling versus paging is a personal preference thing. I don't know the rationale behind that, but I know that some people prefer the smoothness of a scroll over the pages.
Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point
Splitting hairs?
These are the specific things that he complains about being wrong with the new version, and they're ignorant bullshit.
The new google image search is worse than the old one imo
I think the new image search is vastly improved. I doubt I'm alone. For the purpose of finding images it is much more efficient and usable, and if you want advanced searching, it's still there for your advanced searching needs.
But of course, we're just two people with subjective feelings. If Google changed it back, however, I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs.
It is human nature that whenever something changes the complainers tend to be the loudest. The fact that you don't personally like it, and Dvorak affirms your opinion, says absolutely nothing to whether it was a good move for Google or the average user.
Though I have no doubt that everyone with a gripe with Google's image search changes will we drawn into this discussion to add their "Rah rah yah yah!" I hope we're all wise enough to know how to judge that and to not overestimate the scope of that group.
It's also suspect to argue that they did it "just because their competitors are doing it". Could it be that the state of the art on the tubes is improving? Did Apple add multitasking to the iPhone just because Android did it, or because it's actually a good feature to have?
I wouldn't first argue that Dvorak spits out 'ignorant bullshit' while claiming that all design preferences are equally valid.
I personally prefer the older Google Images. For one, I lose the ability to scroll the website immediately after finding it. I do this, for example, when I'm searching for some algorithm by first finding a diagram that I think is clearer and then going directly to read the explanation, or when searching for a recipe by looking for the image first.
I find the new interface to be slightly cluttered to use (with all the animations and uncomfortable feeling when scrolling), At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity. For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
There sometimes is a superior interface, and discussing the pros and cons of a new interface is very valuable.
I wouldn't first argue that Dvorak spits out 'ignorant bullshit' while claiming that all design preferences are equally valid.
Indeed. So who claimed that all design preferences are equally valid? Oddly you seem to be inferring that I did, but I actually didn't, making your lead-in just some noise in hope of soliciting a bias from readers.
At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity
But can you see that perhaps Google was pursuing simplicity by making their image search all about the images themselves? Further they made perusing large sets of images simpler.
For users who don't care about source pixel sizes or originating domains -- which I suspect is most -- that was just distracting noise on the page. Google simplified the search to a dense, and often beautiful, collection of images, with some powerful functionality on the left.
For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
Everyone complains about changes, good or bad. That is a simple truism of the world. It does not trivialize the usability of the interface, which is why I specifically talked about the usability of the interface -- all Dvorak cares about is what used to be there and now isn't. He doesn't care about the advantages of the new interface, because all he's focused on is the negative change (for him).
I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs.
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists". It's very doubtful that sort of comment will make anyone feel better or add much to the conversation. I agree with your point about complainers usually being the loudest, though.
That said, the new image search still bites. It's more time consuming than it used to be, at least for how I use it.
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists".
Dvorak was so incensed that someone moved his cheese (to draw from a terrible book) that he wrote an article predicting Google's "inevitable ruin" was beginning. This is the sort of over the top rejection of change that exemplified that childish response.
>> Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll.
Dvorak is notorious for having an overly negative outlook on things.
"Why would I want to use a mouse?"
"I don't like the idea of having the power button on the front instead of the back"
"The iPad will never sell 5,000,000 units in less than a year.. that's insane"
"you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time."
Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool.
In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll.
If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily.
As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up.
"So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information."
Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this).
But say you really want to see images from usgs.gov? site:usgs.gov, e.g. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+...;
And of course you can search by size (larger than, or a specific absolute size), and so on.
There will always (always) be people who complain about change. John, in this case, is just plying his trollish trade, however.