Does this piss anyone else off?

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 May 2011 23:35
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	25 of 205

38514.25 In reply to 38514.23
I'm not apologising for Google, I don't represent them, I'm just recognising that they are out to make money by being as universal as possible and, given that, I think they've made the right decision in making these things default. The sort of people who don't want them on are the sort of people more likely to understand how to turn them off. That's fine. I am a fairly bad typist. I'm also bad at spelling and bad at remembering exactly what things were called and so on and 'did you mean...' is useful in all of these cases, some of which I'm sure apply to you as well. Regardless, I'm just saying I'd prefer it to be a link at the top of the search results than for it to assume I'm wrong. But, again, for most people the assuming-they're-wrong approach is probably the right one, because most people are quite stupid. Anyway, I'm not arguing that this stuff shouldn't be there, if you want to do that then good luck. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be the default, even. I'm just saying it'd be nice if they presented an interface with all this stuff turned off in one go, rather than having to change all the settings individually and then redo that when it forgets what account you're signed in with etc. etc.. On a completely different note, I've noticed Google is actually starting to get a bit shit lately. Searches seem to be overly-prioritising OR results rather than AND results, to the point where I'm having to put plus signs next to every single word in my search (when I can't put it in quotes because I don't know what order the words might appear in). But then I only get results which contain all of the words when what I really want is results ordered by the number of these words they contain, with some balancing as to proximity. Google always used to be really good for this but it seems to be getting worse lately. For the first time in a very long time I think it's possible that someone might come along and outgoogle google. And while it might seem that google is too entrenched... it didn't take long for us all to abandon lycos and altavista and whatever when google came along. Make a googlekiller, Peter.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 01:46
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	26 of 205

38514.26 In reply to 38514.25
Either I'm tired or you're rambling, but in either case there's still one thing I want to pick out of that mess. quote: for most people the assuming-they're-wrong approach is probably the right one, because most people are quite stupid. There's stupid and there's stupid, and there's also smart-but-hasn't-a-clue-about-computers-so-appears-stupid. Which isn't a particularly eloquent way of putting it, so I made a picture: Which is of course a massive oversimplification, but enough to make the point. Just because a lot of people are stupid and a lot of people can't use computers doesn't mean Google should be dumbed down and made more difficult to use for smart people. Anyway. You no doubt realise that, and might even pretend that you didn't forget for a moment, but I felt like making a pretty picture. Even if it isn't pretty. Or strictly a picture. Anyway. I've also noticed Google's recent shitness with results - I'm actually pleasantly surprised when what I want is in the top five results these days (except when I'm expecting Wikipedia, when I'm surprised when it's not), which is depressing. But, I can't make a GoogleKiller, because I don't have the resources for that at the moment, and - unless someone randomly surprises me with something in the region of £800k - I wont have them for a long while. Besides, Google needs to wait until I've conquered Facebook and Twitter. It'll be much easier once I've beaten them. :P `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	22 May 2011 02:15
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	27 of 205

38514.27 In reply to 38514.26
I'm glad it's not just me with the search results. Hopefully someone's doing something about it somewhere. quote: Just because a lot of people are stupid and a lot of people can't use computers doesn't mean Google should be dumbed down and made more difficult to use for smart people. Why not? Dumbed down just means easier to use and, except in the (many) cases where doing it the hard way has some intrinsic value, surely that's a good thing? Computers aren't a hobby for most people like they are for us. They don't want to learn things about computers and their applications in order to do the things they want to do with computers. The vast majority of computer users now are like that and for those people the defaults are correct. I was obviously being flippant with the 'most people are stupid' thing. I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. I don't really believe in intelligence as an abstract thing at all. I just meant people who, whether because of a lack of interest, lack of skill/ability/aptitude or whatever are not good with computers, which I believe accounts for the majority of people who use them.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 02:35
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	28 of 205

38514.28 In reply to 38514.27
There's a difference between making things easy and simple to use, and making things so simple they serve too limited a purpose to be useful. Google is going in the wrong direction (well, it's not a direction, but anyway), which is a shame because it has so much potential but is wasting it. Well, unless all that potential was just an illusion from the start. :/ shrug `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	22 May 2011 02:49
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	29 of 205

38514.29 In reply to 38514.28
I agree that it's wrong for you and me but for the average user I think it's probably right. Google's business is to cater primarily to those people. But like I say, they should provide a classic/advanced interface to those who want it, the more 'advanced' users. After all, it's us who'll be the early adopters and evangelisers if something better comes along, so it's in their interests to keep hold of us too. c.google.com would be fine.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 03:17
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	30 of 205

38514.30 In reply to 38514.29
I had written a reply, but this stupid fucking android shit did it's crashing trick, and I'm too annoyed to write it again now. :@ `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	22 May 2011 03:28
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	31 of 205

38514.31 In reply to 38514.30
(hug)

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	22 May 2011 07:59
To:	99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)	32 of 205

38514.32 In reply to 38514.21
It really annoyed me in Abu Dhabi when I wanted to go to Google.co.uk that I kept being sent onto the UAE Google.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Chris (CHRISSS)	22 May 2011 08:48
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	33 of 205

38514.33 In reply to 38514.30
When it crashes are you going back to edit text or just continuing typing? Chrissywissywoo

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 12:33
To:	Chris (CHRISSS)	34 of 205

38514.34 In reply to 38514.33
Huh? Neither. It kills the browser entirely and sends me to home screen. (Sometimes it wipes all cookies and I have to login again, but didn't get that this time.) `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Chris (CHRISSS)	22 May 2011 14:11
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	35 of 205

38514.35 In reply to 38514.34
I've had plenty of crashes replying on here. If I'm just entering text it's fine but when I press on a part of the text to edit something it often crashes. Chrissywissywoo

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 14:25
To:	Chris (CHRISSS)	36 of 205

38514.36 In reply to 38514.35
Oh, sorry, see what you were saying. Yeah, I do notice it happens most when editing. However, I've also had it crash from thread list page (when going to press 'go' to refresh). I think in this particular case I was just pressjng outside the text box to defocus, so I could scroll down and press post. I don't remember entirely clearly though, so could be mistaken. It just did it AGAIN :@ Fortunately I had already copied my text, socould just repaste it. (I was trying to focus on the end of the threadlist sentence, to decide if to point out there's nothing being edited there.) If I had a trackball /or/ cursor keys I wouldn't have this stupid damned problem! :@ `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	22 May 2011 14:48
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	37 of 205

38514.37 In reply to 38514.36

Have you tried a different browser? Is this the stock browser?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 14:53
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	38 of 205

38514.38 In reply to 38514.37
Yeah, stock browser. It just bloody happened again a moment ago - four times in under 12 hours! Tried a couple of other browsers in the past but not got on with them, but if the fecking thing continues like this, I'll put up with their flaws for a chance of stability. :@ `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	22 May 2011 14:54
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	39 of 205

38514.39 In reply to 38514.38

Yeah, working is probably the number one feature for a browser!

I have 3 installed and can't decide on which I like the most.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	22 May 2011 14:57
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	40 of 205

38514.40 In reply to 38514.39
What are the pros/cons? `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	22 May 2011 15:05
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	41 of 205

38514.41 In reply to 38514.40

I like Dolphin because of the tabs. And Matt just introduced me to Miren which is quite nice. It also has tabs.

Really to me a browser is a browser, but the stock one gives me issues with the frames here, so if I use it I have to use lite mode most of the time.

I don't like the fact that I am using space for other browsers but I'm sure they don't take up much.

I realize this isn't really answering the question, but they all work usually and it's just the small features that make you pick one over another.

My killer feature will be when one lets me sync my Chrome stuff from my computer to my phone. When one gets that done right, that will be my browser.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Chris (CHRISSS)	22 May 2011 15:56
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	42 of 205

38514.42 In reply to 38514.41
Dolphin uses the built in HTML rendering gubbins, just the ui that is different. Chrissywissywoo

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	22 May 2011 15:59
To:	Chris (CHRISSS)	43 of 205

38514.43 In reply to 38514.42

So not really a reason to use it other than tabs. Very good to know. Thanks!

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Matt	22 May 2011 16:14
To:	Chris (CHRISSS)	44 of 205

38514.44 In reply to 38514.42
Lots of the 3rd party browsers do. Miren also uses the same webkit engine as the stock browser. Only Opera and Firefox use their own rendering engines as far as I'm aware. But the webkit rendering engine won't be responsible for handling the text input or for managing the text selection, that'll be done by the browser UI and the Android API and if either is bugged, that'll be what is causing the crashes. And there is definitely something about the stock browser that causes it to crash lots compared to Miren and Dolphin. It's gotten especially worse since the text selection changes landed in Android 2.3 for me.

0/0

Reply Quote

More