Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google

Revolutionary New Google Feature Hidden Under 'More' Tab Shows Links To Web Pages (404media.co) 32

An anonymous reader shares a report: After launching a feature that adds more AI junk than ever to search results, Google is experimenting with a radical new feature that lets users see only the results they were looking for, in the form of normal text links. As in, what most people actually use Google for. "We've launched a new 'Web' filter that shows only text-based links, just like you might filter to show other types of results, such as images or videos," the official Google Search Liaison Twitter account, run by Danny Sullivan, posted on Tuesday. The option will appear at the top of search results, under the "More" option.

"We've added this after hearing from some that there are times when they'd prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results, such as if they're looking for longer-form text documents, using a device with limited internet access, or those who just prefer text-based results shown separately from search features," Sullivan wrote. "If you're in that group, enjoy!" Searching Google has become a bloated, confusing experience for users in the last few years, as it's gradually started prioritizing advertisements and sponsored results, spammy affiliate content, and AI-generated web pages over authentic, human-created websites.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revolutionary New Google Feature Hidden Under 'More' Tab Shows Links To Web Pages

Comments Filter:
  • Next release will have it hidden better, or more likely removed.

    "Never be evil, unless we can make a buck"

  • Revolutionary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday May 16, 2024 @01:08PM (#64477287)

    So, providing search results on a search engine is now revolutionary? Is that some new definition of the word 'revolutionary?' Is there something I'm missing here?

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      You could do a search on Google to find out . . .

      • Those are the most effective Google searches I do these days - using it as a dictionary, thesaurus, and calculator.

        Anything else and I have to get past the ads and dig through the crap and even then may not find what I'm looking for.

    • by Rinnon ( 1474161 )
      Pretty sure it would be correct to read it as "ReVoLuTiOnAry".
    • Re:Revolutionary? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday May 16, 2024 @01:36PM (#64477353)

      Is there something I'm missing here?

      Yes. You're missing an even partially functioning ability to detect sarcasm.

      • Re:Revolutionary? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday May 16, 2024 @01:43PM (#64477369)

        Is there something I'm missing here?

        Yes. You're missing an even partially functioning ability to detect sarcasm.

        It's msmash. My immediate expectation is it's a blind copy-paste of a marketing droid's output, claiming amazing things when it's really not. That's about 85% of the stories around here now. Marketing as tech news.

        • It's msmash

          No it's not. It's Samantha Cole writing for 404media. Look I'm up for a good Slashdot editor bash any day of the week, but the reality is the entire source article is written in a snarky sarcastic tone, and the opening sentences in the summary make that clear not only for this title, but are also lifted directly from TFA.

          It was obvious that this was sarcasm... to anyone capable of detecting sarcasm.

    • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      yea, its called sarcasm

    • When marketing is involved, everything new is revolutionary, genius, or brave.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Yes. It's called sarcasm. We thought it would be a good AI detector for a while, but the machines are learning.

    • by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      the first paragraph is just a bit of snarky sarcasm.

      The second paragraph is a typical marketing-speak way of saying, "we screwed up, and people hate the change, but instead of admitting it we'll reply with something patronizing that very subtly implies that any who prefer the old way are luddites."
  • see only the results they were looking for

    When did Google last do that? Maybe 2002 or something?

    Google might give you what you were looking for, and it will always blast you with wrong, useless derivatives of what you were looking for.

  • *Old man yells at cloud*

  • Like the original person does, but I use many aspects in my searches. And yes, the previews are helpful.

    Are there times when I decide what to view next, solely based on the URL? Sure. But I regularly double check by the preview contents too. People can create any URL they want, and sometimes it's obvious they're selling rather than the original source of a product. Or it's their sales area versus information/support areas.

    One solution doesn't work for everyone and all situations, and options can be goo

  • *Right now.* What most people use google for *right now* is not remotely what people used Google for in 1999, or 2010. Things change, times change, and snarky old fart complaining about kids these days and their fancy AI can either adapt, or forever click the "More" tab in the hope that his childhood memories of a text based search result stays alive.

    • If the AI were consistently accurate (meaning it summarized well the reliable web pages), it wouldn't be too bad. But it isn't even remotely accurate much of the time.

      • AI isn't consistently anything because it is *checks notes* emerging technology under active development. You can't judge the future of AI. At all. You have zero frame of reference. In the past 2 years we've gone from the inability to do anything functional, to drawing pictures where hands have 7 fingers with 4 knuckles on each, to drawing great hands. We've gone from being unable to form basic function, to being able to optimise matrix manipulation in a way that exceeded the performance of any known algori

  • So does that mean they'll also be re-instituting pre-2018 search heuristics, back before Google became almost completely useless for finding useful things? No?

    Then I'll continue to not use it. Piece of shit.

  • by Athanasius ( 306480 ) <slashdot AT miggy DOT org> on Thursday May 16, 2024 @01:59PM (#64477411) Homepage

    ... if you use any sort of browser configuration or extension to initiate searches then it appears that:

    udm=14

    in the URL query parameters selects this new 'Web' option.

    Of course we can fully expect Google to change that at some point in the future to rug pull the trick.

    • by Funksaw ( 636954 )
      Is there any way one could write a chrome extension that automatically appends ?udm=14 to searches from the chrome search bar?
    • It's telling and that we can't just set it as a default option.

      Especially given this bullshit: "We've added this after hearing from some that there are times when they'd prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results [like when] using a device with limited internet access"

      Yes, make me wait for the initial bloated search results page to load, then let me do some Javascript-reliant interaction to start a new page load that finally gives me the unbloated page I wanted in the first place.

      This is

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Will it actually show only pages that contain the word or phrase you're looking for, or will it still show all the junk that merely links to those pages? That was the original Google shittiness, years before the word enshittification was coined. Heck, even bringing back the link to the archive of what was crawled would be something.

  • Search features should be comprised of: text results. Full stop. Anything else is stupid garbage.
  • by jovius ( 974690 ) on Thursday May 16, 2024 @05:40PM (#64477909)

    The fifth result for me is Google when using Google (non-personalized, ads etc blocked). The fourth is an article 23 Great Search Engines You Can Use Instead Of Google, and before that, there are DuckDuckGo, Qwant, and a Wikipedia article about search engines.

    Google used to be a simple and effective tool for search, and now others are taking its place. It was a tremendous advancement over Altavista etc back in the dayz.

    • Ahhh, that was a thing. It's been years since a simple search got a simple response. Search for whatever today, even within quotes, and before(if) you see anything like what you requested, you get a lot of useless celebrities, ads, and similar shi... stuff. I block ads, trackers, cookies, bugs, all the malodorous malware I can, but nothing allows a simple, specific, search. So good on Google for their choice to give folks what they want. Unfortunately, it's Google. I'll wait til DuckDuckGo returns to it
  • by vbdasc ( 146051 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @02:06AM (#64478463)

    1. Enshittify a service

    2. Create a hidden revolutionary feature that partially deshittifies the service

    3. Watch people rejoice

    4. ???

    5. Profit!

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...