Google Serves Old Search Page To Old Browsers 152
Rambo Tribble writes: In an apparent move to push those using older browsers to update, Google is reported to be serving outdated search pages to said browsers. The older pages lack features available on the newer versions, and this policy compounds with the limits announced in 2011 on Gmail support for older web clients. As a Google engineer put it, "We're continually making improvements to Search, so we can only provide limited support for some outdated browsers." The BBC offers a fairly comprehensive analysis.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could have Opera fake your User Agent header in order to masquerade as an older browser, but the Opera team dropped that and every other feature that made Opera remotely useful when they decided to turn Opera into a rewrapped version of Chrome.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
That is why I am still on 12.17. Works well and does get security updates occasionally. For the very few pages that do not work, I can always use FF.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that the "old" search page is
a) Not the last version that worked with that browser, but the "ancient" version designed to work with NCSA Mosaic
b) Still powered by the modern backend and so subject to their modern requirements like tracking every clickthrough and what query it came from. Without scripts to help, that means that every search results in a different URL for the same result hit, so no purple links indicating where you've already visited. Makes it intensely irritating if you need t
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't notice the problem you're mentioning about link visited being broken. I searched twice for myself, the first time I clicked on one of my links. After the second search, that link was correctly colored purple, as it should. However, I did notice a small delay before it turned from blue to purple.
And there are no tracking cookies or similar inserted into the links, just the plain links. Overall a good experience :-)
I didn't check though whether the results were maybe outdated (newer pages not listed...), that would be nasty...
Re: (Score:2)
And there are no tracking cookies or similar inserted into the links, just the plain links. Overall a good experience :-)
... however, the normal site (for "recent" browsers) does insert tracking cookies.
I didn't check though whether the results were maybe outdated (newer pages not listed...), that would be nasty...
A test with google news shows that this is fortunately not the case, it shows news from within today. So if it is outdated, it's certainly outdated by less than one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I use PrefBar all the time to switch User-Agent on Mozilla (Palemoon).
I vastly prefer the old-and-busted Lynx-style Google Image Search. If I'm looking for an image macro of a cat, I want the sidebar with the URL that actually goes to thefuckinglolcat.jpg, not
Re: (Score:2)
Please, Google, do continue to not "improve" the experience for "older" browsers. I've had all the UX "improvement" I can take.
Well said! I fullheartedly agree, and set the user agent of my firefox to version 0.10: the experience is a breeze! And yes, it even prevents google from inserting its own tracking into some of the links...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Where? I want it!
Second that. I currently use Proxomitron to filter out all the unwanted (by me anyway) crap on Google's home page (instant, preview, sidebar, link redirects, etc...) and have to use "nosslsearch.google.com" to avoid https (so I can use my filtering proxy).
Yes, I know I can use Startpage and/or DuckDuckGo, but they're not as fast as hitting Google directly. Seriously, for simple searches, 99.9% of the time the JavaScript and crap (et al) on all these search pages (like Google and Bing) is a complete bull
Re: (Score:1)
That's a terrible idea. You are aware that using a proxy with HTTPS is entirely possible, right? Set up the proxy to automatically generate trusted certificates using an internal CA key, import the proxy's CA key as a trusted CA, and go to town. I've used both Fiddler and Burp in this way, and I'm sure lots of other software supports it too (automatically, even). Make sure the proxy still performs cert validation and warns you if the validation fails (it shou
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible idea. You are aware that using a proxy with HTTPS is entirely possible, right? Set up the proxy to automatically generate trusted certificates using an internal CA key, import the proxy's CA key as a trusted CA, and go to town. I've used both Fiddler and Burp in this way, and I'm sure lots of other software supports it too (automatically, even). Make sure the proxy still performs cert validation and warns you if the validation fails (it should do this by default).
There. Now you can have your filtering and secure it too.
Why is it a terrible idea to do google searches in the clear? Who honestly gives a shit?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Why is it a terrible idea to do google searches in the clear? Who honestly gives a shit?
Even if no one gives a shit, the more encrypted traffic becomes the norm rather than the exception the more secure we all are. Kind of like how high gun ownership rates improve the safety of non gun owners too (well, at least the white ones).
Re: (Score:2)
Lol what, flamebait? Some mod was very confused...
Anyhow, it's a terrible idea *in general* to use HTTP for anything that is by default over HTTPS. Various reasons include:
1) As mentioned by other posters, we should be increasing the total encrypted traffic, right that decreasing it. Hide everything, even if you have nothing to hide. No good comes of letting everybody between you and Google (and their domestic or international spymasters) observe your traffic, but some harm may come of it.
2) Actual security
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes! Where? I want it!
A thousand times this... I'd even take their old search algorithms over their latest "guessing" and "missing terms" crap. In all the time I've used Google I've never had to use anything beyond +/- and "" to find what I wanted... now it's a mess of buggy "search tools", constantly having to switch to "verbatim", a mass of exclusion terms, etc. It's become an absolute nightmare to use. Unfortunately there's no competition to turn to (I've tried the top 6 alternatives, they just can't compete except for Bin
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the solution is some sort of federated search dongle that submits the search query to google, gathers the results, and throws out everything that isn't actually verbatim or otherwise matching the search query.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's a "verbatim" search.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can get the old Gmail back: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15049?hl=en
I use it because it loads much faster than the standard page.
A solution to a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Other solutions? (Score:4, Insightful)
But you will miss out on all the bloated javascript bullshit if you spoof an old browser.
If only getting rid of slashdot beta were that easy....
Re:Other solutions? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have NoScript enabled on Slashdot, too. Only way this site is remotely usable, just like Google nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
I use Classic with Javascript enabled and it's fine. What unbearable interference is it causing for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Also a NoScript user... I actually don't even know what /. Beta looks like as I have never seen it! :)
Slashdot Beta (Score:5, Interesting)
The last remaining problem I had with beta.slashdot was its turning up in google results. I solved that with Firefox redirector [mozilla.org] and this rule:
Include pattern ... *-beta.slashdot.org* ....... $1.slashdot.org$2 ...... Wildcard
Redirect to
Pattern type
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Awesome! I already had the redirector installed to make all NYTimes pages come up with pagewanted=all, it never occurred to me to use it on Buck Feta!
FWIW:
... *nytimes.com/*pagewanted=1 ....... $1nytimes.com/$2pagewanted=all ...... Wildcard
Include pattern
Redirect to
Pattern type
Re: (Score:2)
If this means I can get iGoogle back, I'm rolling back my browser immediately.
Can you imagine, it's been 8 months and there's still no really good replacement for iGoogle?
Re: (Score:1)
netvibes.com
Re: (Score:2)
Netvibes doesn't come close to the functionality of iGoogle. I suppose it might be useful at the enterprise level, the way they're selling it, but it's just not as good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A solution to a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds about right. I tried netvibes for a few months after iGoogle went away and finally just gave up and use Awesome New Tab in Chrome. Unfortunately, you can't make Awesome New Tab the home page. You can make it come up automatically when you start Chrome, but not when you click the little house.
I've stopped missing iGoogle like I used to, but I'm still kind of pissed.
Seriously, it was a dick move that iGoogle went away. The problem with the igHomes and the netvibes is that they can't integrate all the google services as well as google. On the bright side, with all my futzing with iGoogle replacements and unsuccessfully trying to recreate iGoogle, I've come to understand more clearly how much of Google services' functionality comes from them invading my privacy. So now I use Epic browser and startpage.com and actively seek to thwart google wherever I can, at least in regard to my participation in its "business model". Sometimes, I use Tor browser just to be a dick to people who want to upskirt my private life. Not that there's anything interesting in my private life, but apparently, there's something there good enough that Google was willing to give me all sorts of free shit just to get a peek at my undies. Fuck them.
I came to understand that when somebody gives you something nice for free, and they're not related to you in some direct personal way, you should be suspicious as hell and look for the catch before putting out your hand. Of course, many of you have long understood this, but I had to get hit over the head with it because I'm a little slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Protopage gives me 90% of what iGoogle gave me before, plus a few newer features. Works most of the time with google calender and mail. Haven't tried it with other Google services.
Re:A solution to a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and that's precisely what I've been doing. Firefox + UAControl = score :)
I get to use normal-looking and convenient Google maps (instead of the recent monstrosity that shows up in Safari and other "current" browsers)
I can easily remove trackback links (because Google returns them in plain text to IE6 but goes to great lengths to obfuscate them for current browsers)
And otherwise Google looks clean and neat.
This is one feature of Google I happen to love :)
"Please don't throw me in the briar patch!" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is supposed to motivate me to upgrade? Right now, on the rare occasion I use Google,* I have JavaScript completely disabled to make Google (search, image search, and news) actually work the way I want it to in my browser. If they're going to help with this by serving me their older---read "cleaner, simpler, faster"---search page, I say, thanks, Google!
* Google alternative [startpage.com]. They use the Google index but don't track their users.
Re: (Score:2)
May be what I need to get off Gmail (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see how this affects me. I'm typing this on a current version of Firefox, but I have an old HP notebook by my bedside that runs 24/7 and that I use, among other things, to check my mail in the morning. The thing is, I dare not keep the Firefox browser current, and I'm using a plug-in that I depend on and is only available for Firefox. I don't keep the browser current because, even though I doubled the memory the laptop had when I got it (to the maximum that the old MB would support
Virtualize (Score:4)
I dare not keep the Firefox browser current, and I'm using a plug-in that I depend on and is only available for Firefox. I don't keep the browser current because, even though I doubled the memory the laptop had when I got it (to the maximum that the old MB would support), and also replaced the minimal hard drive with a significantly larger hard drive
Why not virtualize this system instance? Then you don't have to worry about updating it or hardware failures. I have a piece of legacy software at my work we still need but that I've largely virtualized because for arcane reasons I cannot install it on new computers. Then I can give it as much RAM as I want. Works pretty well if your hardware is vaguely modern.
I have to say though that I've been using Firefox since before it was called Firefox and I've never had problems like what you describe. I'm on the latest version and it runs roughly as well as any other browser including Chrome and IE and Safari. I prefer Firefox mostly for personal workflow reasons but the others work fine too. I tend to avoid Safari on Windows an IE obviously isn't available outside of Windows so I tend to avoid it when possible.
You do not need hundreds of open tabs (Score:3)
When you have lots of tabs open (and I open hundreds of tabs)
Ummm, why? No disrespect intended at all but aside from stress testing the performance limits of the software I really can't imagine a reason why you would want to do that. The overhead of managing that many tabs would be far greater than any benefit. You certainly cannot actually use that many tabs for any genuinely productive purpose.
It should never take longer than 30 seconds and and 100% CPU to open a tab (like when you have 200 tabs open and 1800 tabs unloaded/hibernating).
Please explain to me any vaguely reasonable use case where you could possibly need that many tabs active. I promise to keep an open mind but I seriously cannot think of a
my 1987 Camry (Score:1)
Why would I care (Score:2)
I want to search, as long as that works (and Google has not very good search anyways, just the largest database), I don't care one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not an issue. Really. Things work fine for me. Of course there are always those that focus on minor things and blow them up to be disasters. I see Google just as a tool, and not a very good one at that. Whether it is a bot worse or better is immaterial.
Holy cow! Does it also work with Slashdot beta? (Score:2)
It seems they really want to annoy their customers (Score:2)
I've already mostly given up on Google for images, because as a resident of North America, I can't completely disable "Safe Search".
I don't spend a lot of time looking for pron, but neither do I want my search engine eliminating some results because there might be a stray breast in the background of images I'd want to see.
TFA indicates there's a lot of problems with what they're serving to people using older browsers...it's much more than just a reversion to the old Google search page (which I loved, b
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem...
Search users are not Google's customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like I'd better start looking for a new default search engine, because I have no intention of moving past Firefox 22, thanks to that insane new interface they're cramming down people's throat.
You're missing out: the new firefox is substantially less memory hungry than the old one. As for the interface: the classic theme restorer works well. The only thing missing is the menu bar (with the odd thing on the right hand side). Overall given my screen (1024x600) and how much I use the menus (rare), that's
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that information. The last I heard, the Classic Theme Restorer wasn't working all that well. I think I can live without the Menu Bar.
Cheers!
Even better approach ... (Score:2)
I have a bookmark to a static copy of the Google start page from the era when it was starkly simple - none of the goofy javascript nonsense that infests it nowadays. If the returned search pages are just as "outdated" - well, that's even better.
I want to downgrade to the upgrade! (Score:1)
There's a problem at Google right now... it's Y2K search engine is superior to the one that they're offering today. I don't mind the including of AdWords sponsors, but the way they're bossing around the non-shaded parts of the screen is getting to be troubling. Additionally, the major content providers are bossing around Google Search.... I think we need a fresh crawl of the Internet by somebody else.
if you're unhappy about this... (Score:1)
You should ask Google for a refund.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the people who should be asking for refunds are the people who hire the managers of UX departments. Look at this thread. The only consistent vibe is that Google's UX innovations on their websites suck, broken only by mentions that Yahoo's UX innovations to Mail and Flickr suck, and that UX innovations in all web browsers (Firefox more so than Chrome) also all suck.
Windows pre-8. GNOME pre-3. Firefox pre-Australis. Firefox pre-
There are several problems with this (Score:4, Insightful)
Google says: "We encourage everyone to make the free upgrade to modern browsers -- they’re more secure and provide a better web experience overall."
Bullshit.
First, this simply is not true. Beginning with version 29 (which is now 3 or 4 versions out of date already), Firefox completely fucked up their browser and turned it into unusable garbage. Newer is not better. Newer is demonstrably worse. If I wanted a shitty browser with extremely limited configurability, I'd use Internet Explorer.
Second, you should be able to view any web page using any browser released in the last 5 years. If something doesn't work properly it means you are putting too much fucked up bullshit into your webpage.
Re: (Score:2)
Just install the "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on and Firefox is as usable as it was before.
Re: (Score:2)
you should be able to view any web page using any browser released in the last 5 years. If something doesn't work properly it means you are putting too much fucked up bullshit into your webpage.
This can be said every 10 years. All browsers, all web pages.
Re: (Score:1)
Google says: "We encourage everyone to make the free upgrade to modern browsers..."
Should read: "We want everyone to use Chrome. We even try to install it surreptitiously to your machine when you download other programs."
Re: (Score:2)
Google says: "We encourage everyone to make the free upgrade to modern browsers -- they’re more secure and provide a better web experience overall."
Then where's the free upgrade for an Android 2.x device? Chrome requires Android 4.
Re: (Score:2)
It's here [cyanogenmod.org]. You're welcome.
What for Android phones without Unknown sources? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That does kinda blow, but sounds like an even better reason to *get* Cyanogen. Note: those "standard installation instructions" only work on a particular, rather small subset of Android phones. Cyanogenmod itself works on a much larger subset, though I think still not all of them, I have no idea if the Galaxy S Captivate is one of them or not. (Though it looks like the answer is yes [cyanogenmod.org]?)
I installed Cyanogenmod on my previous phone that was stuck on 2.3 (and full of crapware I didn't want)... I had to firs
How? (Score:2)
I guess I noticed this the other day... (Score:2)
I noticed a few days ago when using Google's image search that it was no longer giving me an infinitely long page of results, but instead they just quickly loaded and there was a 'next' button at the bottom of the page for when I wanted more. I just thought it was my lucky day or something, as I'd always gotten the infinitely long version before, and so I assume they just mis-identified my web browser as not supporting it and would fix the bug soon. Didn't realize it was a feature I'll get to enjoy foreve
Old-Quality Results (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I often like the "similar meaning" results but not always. Ergo it should be an option IMHO. /. .
For example "Exact:" or something like it.
Or it could simply allow regex with a similar prefix. Then I would have a reason to learn regex.
They already use : as a special string. For example "site:http://www.slashdot.org " only gives results from
Does it eliminate 5-more? (Score:2)
I might actually take some effort to spoof my user-agent if it eliminates 5-more. You know, because "modern" Google assumes that my 1680-pixel wide display can't show me all the top-level options. So it makes up for that by showing the 5 most recently used options, and then "more". Where the fuck did Maps go? Oh. It's under "more" now because I haven't used maps for a while. But at least I can pretend to be on a phone even though I've got 1680 horizontal pixels. I always wanted the imaginary creature
still using google ?!?! (Score:2)
Anyone still using google gets what they deserve. White list their ad delivery domains and find another search engine. I really miss Alta-Vista, and DEC in general.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you.... the bing user?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While there might in fact be 2 Bing users I'm not one of them. I find Bing relies too much on looking pretty and less on delivering decent non-sponsored results. My parents seem to like Bing, though and all I can do is shake my head and set up their browser for them...
Older operating systems... (Score:1)
Which means that if you are not using a current mainstream operating system that is supported by Mozilla, then you are out of luck.
I still use OS/2 - eCS for a lot of things that I do. Although there is a user supported Firefox for OS/2 the most current version that I have is I think 10.0 something.
Thanks Google.
I see it as a good thing (Score:2)
Google Serves Old Search Page To Old Browsers
It's about how you put the words. The alternative would be "Google Serves Broken Page To Old Browsers". Isn't this only offering good compatibility?
As long as the search results are the same, (Score:1)
check how google stop tracking you in the internet (Score:1)
Affected Browsers (non scientific) (Score:5, Informative)
By changing the User Agent string on my brower I found that the following are affected by this:
IE9
FF6.0
Chrome 4
Safari 5
And all versions of Opera before they used the blink engine.
Possibly more when I have the time.
The timeline on when these came out is wavy as hell.
Why does search need a modern browser? (Score:1)
For a successful search you enter a text string and hit enter, the website does its stuff and returns a list of links. This shouldn't need anything that isn't supported even in the most basic browser. Even adding functionality such as previews doesn't need heavy duty scripts, or modern features.
Modern Browsers (Score:2)
Thankfully I'm using modern browsers, so I shouldn't be affected:
* NetSurf 3.2 (released 2014-08-30)
* Dillo 3.0.4 (released 2014-04-09)
* lynx 2.8.8 (released 2014-03-09)
* w3m 0.5.3 (released 2013-04-26)
Gosh things move fast (Score:1)
Opera (Score:2)
Another reason to keep using the old Opera 12...
Old browser? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-Blink Opera must be airbrushed out of history. Opera has always been a Chrome clone, comrade.
google bank statements (Score:1)
funny how trying to track down a debit card charge from Sam's Club I instead get people's banking account statements, in the search results, very disturbing.
I thought they meant outdated results! (Score:2)
We won't use this the way they want us to.... (Score:1)
Hallelujah!! I can print maps for my expense reports!!! But holy cow, they also provide old satellite images? My colleague here is looking at the exact same maps page, and he is seeing a current map, i see something that I'm not kidding must be 20 years old. (Wow. So that's what it looked like before all the roads were built in this area.)
What passive agressive assholes Google are.....
Oh well at least i can print travel summaries, screw you very much Google. They are gonna get a lot of lies in the use
i can see the onion headline right now... (Score:2)
Web Companies Google, Amazon, et al. Upset that Users of Old Browsers Can't See Their New Advertising Technology
Re: (Score:2)
Love the Microsoft shills. My daily dose of comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. But, being an anonymous poster bashing Google five minutes after a post with their name on it and then replying to a comment against you 8 minutes later certainly does not help your credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your outright lie that Google is serving up the old home page to IE11 users has been outed for what it is, a lie.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
What kinds of morons use IE, regardless of version? Masochists? Or is this some subtle form of "I am dumb and proud about it!"-movement?
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft made a solid business for many years simply from tricking morons into thinking that being a smart, savvy computer user just requires spending enough money on the software. Their power is visibly waning, but won't evaporate any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed. For some reason there is a specific kind of moron that cannot understand that "free" can be better than "costs something".
Re:Anti-Trust (Score:4, Insightful)
IE has been decent since 9, and good since 10. No reason not to use it these days. I like the UI better than the latest from FF or Chrome, though I hear good things about Pale Moon - need to try that soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon sounds good. If it is anywhere near as customizable as Opera 12.x, I will give it a shot. I do not like the current FF user interface at all. It slows me down and does not allow me to organize things efficiently. What were they thinking?
Surface and Lumia (Score:2)
People with a Surface tablet* or a Lumia phone are more likely to use IE because there's no Firefox on Windows RT or Windows Phone. And IE has richer Group Policy support if that's your thing.
* Other than Surface Pro
Re: (Score:1)
Any version of IE is outdated. Why does anyone continue to use this POS?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the thing is, it isn't free. You just don't pay the price in cash or credit, but in privacy and possibly a little piece of your soul.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So take the "stop paying" option. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Better option: use startpage or duckduckgo - same search, no creepy stalker peering in through your window.
Re: (Score:1)
This really confused me. Was there a point?