Has anyone looked at the new Google?

Dora

limey wrote:

> Has anyone looked at the new Google?


It sux - BIG TIME...

:-|

--
Best
Greg

On 2007-01-25, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> It sux - BIG TIME...

????

Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally realized
older people use it, too.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-01-25, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
>> It sux - BIG TIME...
>
> ????
>
> Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally realized
> older people use it, too.

Looks the same to me, too, 'cept bigger.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:22:31 -0700, Pennyaline
> wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> On 2007-01-25, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>>
>>> It sux - BIG TIME...
>>
>> ????
>>
>> Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally realized
>> older people use it, too.
>
>Looks the same to me, too, 'cept bigger.

I'm not seeing anything "bigger".

--
See return address to reply by email

sf wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:22:31 -0700, Pennyaline
>
> > wrote:
> >notbob wrote:
> >> On 2007-01-25, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
> >>> It sux - BIG TIME...
>
> >> ????
>
> >> Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally realized
> >> older people use it, too.
>
> >Looks the same to me, too, 'cept bigger.I'm not seeing anything "bigger".
>


Yup...at the rate this is going they'll have to invent "quadfocals"....

--
Best
Greg

"notbob" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 2007-01-25, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
>> It sux - BIG TIME...
>
> ????
>
> Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally
> realized
> older people use it, too.
>
> nb

I tried going to the Groups and bringing up rec.food.cooking. Believe me,
it's different.

Dora

On Jan 25, 2:27 pm, "limey" > wrote:

> I tried going to the Groups and bringing up rec.food.cooking. Believe me,
> it's different.

You can configure it as you could before but how to find the options is
a little less obvious. The only functional loss I've seen so far is
that you can't preview what your response will look like before you
post it. That is a loss, I think, to those of us who cut and paste in
our responses. I haven't found any offsetting gains, so the score so
far is Substantive Gains, 0, Substantive Losses, 1, Esthetics, better
or worse acc. to taste. -aem

On Jan 25, 2:34 pm, "aem" > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2:27 pm, "limey" > wrote:
>
> > I tried going to the Groups and bringing up rec.food.cooking. Believe me,
> > it's different.You can configure it as you could before but how to find the options is
> a little less obvious.

Where are the options? This thing is horrid. I managed to set up the
main list a little closer to the old way, but when I choose a group, it
always resets me at post number 1 even though it knows which messages I
have not read.

It also spreads out the list of groups with information I don't need
instead of just listing them and showing how many new posts. I don't
care about how long I have been away, how many posts were in response
to mine. I just want to see the list without all the graphics and extra
stuff.

limey wrote:

>>
>>Looks like the same google to me. It *is* bigger, like they finally
>>realized
>>older people use it, too.
>
> I tried going to the Groups and bringing up rec.food.cooking. Believe me,
> it's different.
>

They changed the Search Images feature too. Now you can only see the
resolution and url of the images when you mouseover. So instead of
scanning the results for something I want, I have to do the
carpal-tunnel twitch to get any useful information.


Dawn

On 2007-01-25, limey > wrote:

> I tried going to the Groups and bringing up rec.food.cooking. Believe me,
> it's different.

You're right, Dora, and for the better. Much better. They finally
got the damn thing right after screwing everything up with their
"sponsored links". Not everyone uses Windows and Internet Explorer
and with some OSs and browsers at certain resolutions, the ad links
text would run over into the group articles text and made it almost
impossible to read in some spots. This revision put in some much
needed frames and really cleaned everything up. I like it.
Unfortunately, it's still not as good as it was originally, before the
ads and when they included a thread tree. I also notice the whole
thing is now slower than Hell.

nb

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:04:46 GMT, "limey" > wrote:

>Has anyone looked at the new Google?


Daily........your point?

On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, "limey" > wrote:
> Has anyone looked at the new Google?
>
> Dora

My main complaint is that they have no provision for kill files. I'd
love to be able to get rid of those MI5 wastes of time, for example.

David

"dtwright37" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, "limey" > wrote:
>> Has anyone looked at the new Google?
>>
>> Dora
>
> My main complaint is that they have no provision for kill files. I'd
> love to be able to get rid of those MI5 wastes of time, for example.
>
> David
>


How about using a real news service and your own software?

dtwright37 wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, "limey" > wrote:
> > Has anyone looked at the new Google?
> >
> > Dora
>
> My main complaint is that they have no provision for kill files. I'd
> love to be able to get rid of those MI5 wastes of time, for example.

There are plugins for that.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"limey" > wrote in
news:2Q9uh.13647$o31.1052@trndny04:

> Has anyone looked at the new Google?

http://www.google.com/ ?

It looks the same to me.
What is different?

On Jan 25, 9:47 pm, sandi > wrote:
> "limey" > wrote innews:2Q9uh.13647$o31.1052@trndny04:
>
> > Has anyone looked at the new Google?http://www.google.com/ ?
>
> It looks the same to me.
> What is different?

Google GROUPS has undergone a major change and not for the better. Now
if you increase the text size you have to scroll from side to side to
read posts. Major PITA.

Gabby

"Gabby" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
>
> On Jan 25, 9:47 pm, sandi > wrote:
>> "limey" > wrote
>> innews:2Q9uh.13647$o31.1052@trndny04:
>>
>> > Has anyone looked at the new Google?http://www.google.com/
>> > ?
>>
>> It looks the same to me.
>> What is different?
>
> Google GROUPS has undergone a major change and not for the
> better. Now if you increase the text size you have to scroll
> from side to side to read posts. Major PITA.
>
> Gabby

Oh. Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it.
Sorry, I think of Google as a search engine and forget it has the
usenet archives and the Google groups.

Thanks again. :-)

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:04:46 GMT, "limey" > wrote:

>Has anyone looked at the new Google?
>
New google what? If you're talking about what happens when you click
on "groups", it's more than awful.

--
See return address to reply by email

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:04:46 GMT, "limey" > wrote:
>
>>Has anyone looked at the new Google?
>>
> New google what? If you're talking about what happens when you click
> on "groups", it's more than awful.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Great, isn't it. I don't post from
Google but use it as a search engine and to check usenet archives
particularly to search for a recipe that someone says they posted to Usenet
some time back. That's where it's a real PITA now. And - to others -
yes, I do have a news server - in fact I have two.

Dora

Do you mean the groups? It's awful!

--
My Word
in
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
http://www.mompeagram.homestead.com/index.html
"limey" > wrote in message
news:2Q9uh.13647$o31.1052@trndny04...
> Has anyone looked at the new Google?
>
> Dora
>
>
>

Did the old version say anything about Usenet? I see the new one does.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/