InsideGoogle

part of the Blog News Channel

Google Images Removes Useful Information

Google has done a terribly unpopular thing, redesigning Google Images so that it presents no new information, no new features, just increases the white space. It could be one of the worst redesigns I’ve ever seen.

The new Google Images is identical to the old one, except all the text that used to appear on the page, save the title of the image, is hidden, and only appears when your mouse is near the image. The redesign does not make for more space on the page, or larger images, or a cooler new look, it just removes info that was always there. If you want to find out what website an image was from, or how big it is, you have to work for it, and there is no way to compare the images against each other.

There’s no real explanation why Google did this. We know Google is obsessed with white space, but this is overkill, actually removing features by painting over them white. This would be the equivelant of Gmail only showing you who sent you an email, and forcing you to mouse over to see what the email was about, or Google Video showing you a thumbnail, with no video title, description, or length information. If Google wants to convince users to stop using Google services, they can start by doing this to all of them.

It certainly seems like Google is ripping off Windows Live Images, and if they are, this is a real crappy way of doing it. Windows Live Image Search shows only thumbnails on an all-white page, but they also let you resize them to show more on the page, the page scrolls into infinity (instead of showing a mere 20, then forcing you to click Next, over and over), and you get a scratchpad which lets you compare images regardless of where they show up.

So, Google has ripped off Microsoft, but did it by removing features it already had and lacking features Microsoft has had for months. Way to show leadership in the industry.

The part that pisses me off is that Google Images (and most of the competition) handles searching for images of similar sizes in a pretty broken way. All of them let you choose between all, large, medium and small (Windows Live adds images equal to your current screen resolution, Yahoo adds “wallpaper”, and Ask adds a buddy icon size), vague ways of distinguishing between them. I have no idea what a “medium” image is, and neither does Google as far as I can tell.

When I’m looking for an interesting image that fits a specific need, Google is always giving me images that are way too small, even when searching under medium (and large is way too big and limited, often). Now, Google doesn’t even show me the image sizes, so I have to guess? Screw that!

Thankfully, there is a solution: Disable JavaScript. All modern browsers give you a way of doing that to specific sites (or a list of sites), and disabling JavaScript for images.google.com brings back the old interface. In Opera, you only need to tick a check-box in Site Preferences; In Firefox, you edit your profile; in IE, you add it to a list of Restricted Sites. My recommendation: Do it fast, and never look back. The new Google Images is a huge blunder by Google, and should not be allowed to annoy you day in and day out.

In the meantime, I’m going to be paying close attention to Ask X, and see how their image search measures up. I’m getting the feeling Google is determined to fall behind and make mistakes with their search interfaces, and I’d better keep my options open if I need to switch one day.

January 26th, 2007 Posted by Nathan Weinberg | Yahoo, Ask, Microsoft, Google Images, Search, General | 6 comments



Hosting sponsored by GoDaddy

6 Comments »

  1. I’ll pass on the feedback to the image team.

    Comment by Matt Cutts | January 26, 2007

  2. I agree that the new layout sucks. Surely google of all people realise that you dont change a good thing unless you are adding some really good new things. (example: the recent RSS reader update for the personalised google homepage is really good.)

    Comment by Mortalmatt | January 26, 2007

  3. […] Comments […]

    Pingback by The Google Images Redesign | Latent Semantic Indexing | January 26, 2007

  4. I agree that Google’s Image Search redesign was quite a blunder and a big step in the wrong direction. To make a point, I did a redesign exercise which includes some new features that I think can really improve Image Search.

    Comment by Joshua Kaufman | January 28, 2007

  5. Yeah, I agree with you, and in fact, the crappy way Google Images handles image size caused me to check out Yahoo and such as well. (This would’ve been a great way for Yahoo to get me to visit them more often, because right now, I never do).

    I even have a text file on my desktop that specifies how Google images appears to work in terms of resolution:
    xxlarge - 480000 > 20000000+ pixels
    xlarge - 160000 > 479799
    large - 40000 > 159999
    medium - 10000 > 39999
    small - 2500 > 9999
    icon - 1- > 2499 pixels

    Note that the size property is valid in the URL only. I think the “small” and “large” option in the drop box each refer to the smallest and biggest URL option, “medium” refers to the middle three. (I think it’s become outdated a bit by now, though, I should check)

    Yeah, I really wish Google would introduce new advanced options everywhere, like filetype:jpg (images) and is:free (video). I mean, it’s not like I’d ask them to clutter the interface with it, as long as there’s some hidden documentation.

    Comment by Tim | February 9, 2007

  6. […] Someone at Google must be a little sad right about now. This guy decided to take the initiative and update the interface for Google Images a little bit, adding some stuff while retaining the same general look, and he got a very public smackdown from the community (I’m looking at you, mirror). So, after a very negative reception from users, Google has undone all that coder’s hard work, and we are left right back where we started, with the original Google Images interface. […]

    Pingback by » Google Relents, Restores Classic Google Images Interface » InsideGoogle » part of the Blog News Channel | February 27, 2007

Leave a comment