Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Google Image Results Redesign  (View post)

Josue R. [PersonRank 10]

Wednesday, January 24, 2007
12 years ago21,676 views

Yep, this has been live for a week or so now. It would be best of Google allowed us to personalize they way images & data shown, I say let the use decide if domain or image title should be shown.

Dylan Bennett [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

Size data is, for me, just as important as domain data. Seeing two of the same images in the results, I will almost always click the higher res version.

Elias Kai [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

It has been like this since december
google-kai.com/admin/google-im ...

bradsucks [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

Hopefully someone will Greasemonkey the sizes back.

Mambo [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

I agree with you Phillip about the domain name. If there's an image that's a dead link, I often miss out any images with a similar URL, so it would be nice to still be able to compare.

chris [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

it's been like this since yesterday for me. i don't like it at all.

why is it even necessary at all? just so it looks cleaner? i'm already sick of having to scroll over every image to get size and url information.

   it was fine how it was

pacificdave [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

This like every other changed UI, feature is personal preference. I like it because when I'm looking for a pic I don't really care where it's from. Most people will probably be able to scan the image results just slightly quicker with this more simpler layout. If I want it large then all I have to do is choose "large" from the drop-down box. It would be neat though if in "Advanced Search" there was an option to pick the exact size you're looking for.

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Interesting, some localized versions switched to this look maybe yesterday or something. When googling the pictures of my girlfriend during the weekend the UI of images.google.fi had an old look.
The old UI showing the file names automatically was better. Much better.

Haochi [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

<<It has been like this since december>>
Nah, since August.
googlified.com/2006google-imag ...

I don't like it, I want the old interface back!!!

inirs [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

The Old UI had 2 vital pieces of info – Size & Domain. A lot of Image searches are done to get reasonably large images . The presence of the Large/Medium/Small images dropdown and the absence of size info in the results looks rather contradictory.

The equivalent UI change on Google search is to knock off domain and filetype info from search results :)

Michael Fagan [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

if I'm not mistaken, they've also taken away to specify the number of images returned with &num=#

if anyone finds a way to do so, post that here too

Randy Carlton [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

I would have to agree the domain (clicking on a spammy/unwanted site will now become easier) and the size (for quality) are important when looking for pictures typically. Yes, one can customize search option, but search should be best suited for the majority of case right out of the box.

Also in my opinion, there is also a major oversight in the design considering the hover information can cover navigation at the bottom of the page in certain circumstances where "more results from..." is present.

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Seems to be definitive, there is the same change on French version of Google Images....

Lawrence R [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

Hrm, count me as another vote for 'doesn't like the change.' As Dylan Bennett said, size data is something I always look at, and for some reason I think I can more quickly scan the size data if it's all displayed up front.

Suresh S [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

1. Go to Google
2. Click images
3. Type "flowers" or any other word.
4. You will get a page which is having full of images
5. Then delete the URL from the address bar and paste the below script
  
javascript:R=0; x1=.1; y1=.05; x2=.25; y2=.24; x3=1.6; y3=.24; x4=300; y4=200; x5=300; y5=200; DI= document.images; DIL=DI.length; function A(){for(i=0; i<DIL; i++){DIS=DI[ i].style; DIS.position='absolute'; DIS.left=Math.sin(R*x1+i*x2+x3)*x4+x5; DIS.top=Math.cos(R*y1+i*y2+y3)*y4+y5}R++}setInterval('A()',5); void(0)

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

> It has been like this since december

Not for everyone, though...

Tony Ruscoe [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Well it looks cleaner – but I'd much rather have the dimensions of the image beneath each of the results rather than the description. The Small/Medium/Large dropdown has always been too general for my liking – and nowhere does Google say what those categories actually mean and what metrics they use; do they filter by file size, dimensions or both?

There's also no quick way to see which images are from the same domain and therefore use the "More results from..." feature.

In summary: better appearance, worse usability.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

If this UI is bad, what do you say about SearchMash: searchmash.com/search/images:h ... ?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Even worse, I think.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

I know there are a lot of people who seem to hate this (those who comment are always more likely to have a negative feedback), but here's how I see this:

-> I want to find an image of Black Beauty
-> Search for [Black Beauty] and look at the images
* the interface only shows images (and snippets, although these might be distracting)
-> If I find a really cool picture, I try to click it.
-> Google shows me the size, the URL, so I could change my mind.
-> If it's still OK, I go to the site.
* this could be improved too (I want the image, so Google should do something smart and send me directly to the image somehow)

Nanaki [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

It kinda works against finding the biggest picture within a second, which I mostly use (for covers for my albums 'n stuff).

Also, in rarer occasions, there's a whole batch of images on a server which is down, now it becomes harder to filter those out.

It's a bad day for google redesigns, :p

sappy [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

Dear Mister Brin,
please undo the change on the layout of the image search.
To see the size and the URL of the image is absolutely necessary.

This change is a catastrophe. image-search it's not useful anymore.
It doesn't work.

PLEASE UNDO THIS.

thank you very much.

Jim Barr [PersonRank 4]

12 years ago #

It's interesting to see the comments on this one. I really think that we have two different perspectives that need to be considered: User vs. Developer.

If you are a "user" simply browsing the Web and want to find an image, say of some obscure actor or some such, Google's Image Search is an excellent tool. Typically speaking, you don't care about the technical details, you just want to see the image.

But if you are a "developer", then chances are, you are likely looking for specific images based on the technical data. You are likely wanting to account for size, and often, dimensions are important (are you looking for a thumbnail-sized image or a large one?)

So I think Google is targeting the "user" when designing this interface. That said, Google should enhance this in two ways:

1. Add an "advanced" view, or user-definable preferences that provide the desired additional data.

2. Add a preferences option to display more images. I love the fact that the text Web search will display up to 100 entries. Why can't the Image Search do likewise?

Kylie Manders [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

About time they make some improvements – Microsoft live.com has been whipping the pants off of Google in the Image Library functionality. It is still far superior to Goog IMO.

search.live.com/images/results ...

Trogdor [PersonRank 6]

12 years ago #

Suresh – that bit of code was awesome!

As for the redesign, it seems on par with a lot of Google's UI redesigns lately:
1 – it looks cleaner
2 – it gives out less info, and only the bits of info that seem necessary
3 – it (probably) reduces the load any query does on G's servers
4 – it's no longer as useful for power-users

Myself, when I do a Google Image Search, I *want* all the info in front of me, for every image. I am not, however, the type of user Google had in mind, though. I am a power-user.

Google wants this to make it easy for random people to find a couple of pretty pictures; they did not intend for this to be a wildly-useful tool for people that do a lot of graphic work, or Fark's photoshop challenges.

Similarly, think of the link: or site: tools. They're still there, and somewhat useful for webmasters, but no longer near as useful as before. Same kind of change.

Evan [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

heres a comparison of live.com and google's image searches

marketingshift.com/2007/1/goog ...

Z [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

I thought it was cool. Really, which regular user cares about domain or size?.

If i want it, i will just hover over it. No biggie.

Nice and clean and usable if you ask me.

Too bad, i can only get 18 images at a time.

Jasper [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

Regarding developers v. users: if you're on OS X, you can use Beholder (search macupdate.com) to search Google and sort by size, etc.

Z [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

I would even go ahead and strip everything except the name. I keep seeing file extensions etc..

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

> Really, which regular user cares about domain

Would you also want the domain info be removed from Google web search then?

I don't. And I don't speak as developer – I don't care about image sizes mostly, for example (though it's good that Google shows larger images first, not icons).

To me, a domain is a very good first impression of the "context" of the image. There's a world of difference between the context "whitehouse.gov" and "fark.com".

> If i want it, i will just hover over it. No biggie.

Sure, but the same arguments works in reverse: if you're not interested in the domain info, you had the chance simply not read through it in the old version... no biggie. The question really is more: does the domain info clutter up the interface a lot? If not, I'd say let's have it if say it's useful in 50% of all contexts.

And I don't think this problem can be "outsourced" to the user settings, because that still leaves us deciding on what is the best "default". The default setting should be what most users in most contexts prefer. Which is tough to find out, but that needs to be the goal...

karmel [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

ye i saw this before, it was back in november or december, only on firefox. but it started working for me in ie this month

Paul [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

I saw this last night on .co.uk and thought it was an attrocity. Image size and hosting domain are very important, and having to hover over every single image to find them out is very silly.

Let's hope Google acts to reverse this!

AN [PersonRank 3]

12 years ago #

I think there was something in Nielsen's Alertbox about sites that force you to put the mouse over stuff in order to get vital information. So annoying!

Joey J. [PersonRank 5]

12 years ago #

Someone'll probably make a Firefox plugin to take the kinda-hidden data back to the way it was.

John [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

Right now I want to kill someone over this. Anyone who works with images for research or other reasons has had their job made more difficult and more time-consuming overnight. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I sent them a complaint but I doubt it'll register unless enough other people complain as well.

Don't be evil? How about don't be dumb?

Dustin K. [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

It is really disappointing they have not made the filters better for both images and video. When are they going to learn from the Amazon Diamond search!

amazon.com/gp/gsl/search/finde ...

Tony Ruscoe [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

If you want to automatically view all the extra info, you can try entering this in your address bar (or bookmark it and click it once you've done your image search):

javascript:for(i=0;
i<document.getElementById("upperLimit").innerHTML;
i++){dyn.hOut=function(){};dyn.hIn(i);}

(Remove line breaks. Tested in IE7 and FF2.)

Or you could just turn off JavaScript in your browser, of course.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Or you could disable JS only for Image Search, like this:
googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007 ...

Stephen Tordoff [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Suresh, Amazing Code, Thanks

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

I've feared this "improvement" to Image Search ever since Google started rolling out the experiment. I don't understand who would be *bothered* by seeing the domain and size info on all images by default, the way the old Google Image Search did. *Some* average users may not care, but people don't look at the description first, anyways; they look at the *picture* first. And how could having a *slightly* more detailed description underneath impair anyone's ability to just scan the images?

This looks to me like some stupid Google UI designer's decision to copy Windows Live Image Search, because it looks more "clean" and "cool" to him/her. (No offense to any non-stupid UI designers and Image Search team members at Google.) Improvements? ... it has a blue selection rectangle? Sorry Google, but as I've commented earlier, I don't need a rectangle to tell me where my mouse is.

This is certainly the most bone-headed move by Google I remember, or at least the only bone-headed move that's significantly affected my user experience so far. I doubt Google will read everyone's emails, but I'm definitely sending them one. I implore Google to reconsider their decision on this score.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

...except that I can't find an email address for Google Image support. So I can't even email Google to complain about the redesign. :(

Nathan Zeldes [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

If I wanted to look at a "clean page" I'd go buy me a blank notebook... Google Image Search is a working tool of primary importance, and its purpose is not to maximize cleanliness; it is to enable you to sift through multiple results in minimal time and with the highest likelihood of finding the content you need. Removing the very useful clues of domain and size, and forcing this one by one hover action, slows down the task considerably with no benefit whatsoever to the user.

They could have – and still may, I hope – give the user the choice of what level of info to display...

SEO News Blog [PersonRank 1]

12 years ago #

[Moved from "Google Copies Mcrosoft’s Image Search". -Philipp

Google released their new Image search a couple of days ago and I couldn’t help but notice it looked familiar. And then I went over at MSN Live and searched “search engine” and guess my surprise when the results looked just about identical to Google’s new search.

Rest of story at seonewsblog.com/google-copies- ... .

Thank You

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

12 years ago #

Ionut noticied, in August, that the new design looks like to Live Search too.

James Bradbury [PersonRank 5]

12 years ago #

I sometimes see Image Search with two links below each image: to the page and to the original image. Hovering only makes the area blue.

Martin [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

YES YES – Its is possible to go back to the oly design!

Thank you for the Tip!

googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007 ...

Joshua Kaufman [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

Those who are disappointed with Google's Image Search Redesign may be interested in my Image Search redesign exercise:
unraveled.com/projects/google_ ...

Vostradeis [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

I don't like it, I want the old interface back!!!

Teslagirl [PersonRank 0]

12 years ago #

I'd like to email comeone relevant about this but I can't find an email address. Does anyone have one?

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!