Google Search displays icons now on results pages
If you are still using Google Search, you may have noticed that Google changed the design of the search results page by adding icons to results.
Google does not make changes to the company's search results page on a large scale regularly, and when it does, it is usually backed up by data that confirms that the change is beneficial.
Previously, search results showed the page title, part of the URL, and a short description of content. The only exception to the rule have been ads placed prominently on search results pages as they featured a tiny "Ad" next to the URL.
The search change rolled out last year to mobile users but Google started the roll out for desktop systems just this week.
The change impacts how advertisement is marked on search results pages and how sites are displayed. When you run a search now, you will notice that a site's favicon is displayed next to the URL in the top line. Below it is the page title and below the title is the description.
Google, bascially, swapped page title and URL positions and added the icon to the line depicting part of the URL in the results.
As far as ads are concerned -- of which there are plenty above the fold -- they use the new design as well. The color has been changed to black though and the box that surrounded the Ad text was removed as well.
Google stated on its official The Keyword blog that the refresh is designed to "better guide" Google customers "through the information available on the web".
With this new design, a website’s branding can be front and center, helping you better understand where the information is coming from and what pages have what you’re looking for.
Internet users who have monitored Google over the years may have a different answer as to why the change was made: to further push advertising revenue. With the Ad text now black and without a box around it, it may be more difficult to spot what is an ad and what is now especially since all sites now show something in the spot.
While most favicons are not text, it is certainly possible that some sites display text as the favicon. The Dutch netwspaper Algemeen Dagblad even uses AD as its favicon, albeit with a red background.
Lifehacker published a filter that you can add to uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, and other content blockers that support the blocking syntax to do away with these icons.
All you need to do is add the following filters to the custom filters list.
google.com##.TbwUpd
google.com###am-b0
google.com##.GHDvEf.ab_button
The filters remove the icons from Google Search to return to the much clearer look.
Google made some changes with impact to its search engine over the years. A look in our archive returned a style from 2011 that shows a sidebar on the left and results that displayed title, description, and url in that order. The company moved the sidebar to the top in 2012 and the order of results changed to title, URL, and description in that year.
Now Y0u: what is your take on the change? Do you still use Google?
“Do you use Google Photos?”
I do; I find it impossible not to use Google Photos on the Android phone; nevertheless, the “memory” feature is sort of neat. I’ve seen photos from a couple of years ago that that offer glimpses into the long-ago, forgotten past. It’s a lot like reviewing journal writing. “What was I doing and such and such a date?”
And, I think, when the “memories” are sorted and positioned, one can create a mini-collage with up to eight photos.
It’s so much easier to share photos with people rather than journal entries.
Nifty!
I delete the photos after 1 month of being taken. All of them are erased to return to the black and silent nothingness. Only the best ones are printed and placed in a very nice site at home. :]
I should buy a Chromebook.
None of the big tech companies are good but at least Google are the least dishonest and morally bankrupt of them. They’re always trying to do the right thing if the money allow it.
In reply to “https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/19/google-keep-is-getting-a-version-history-but-only-on-the-web/” since the website has gone insane and no one can know where thier comment ends up.
This app should be called “Google Keeps it”. Because, they do.
I use Color Notes. No syncing, no internet, just local.
The article said: “[…] positive outcomes of genocide…”. Perhaps the AI was actually discussing the benefits of reading a “Scroll of genocide” … “You feel dead inside.”.
Martin, this post reply is supposed to belong: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/22/googles-ai-search-generates-horribly-misleading-answers/] (given the the database is faulty it could appear anywhere or nowhere).
I have yet to be impressed with AI of any kind. I think it’s overhyped and not ready to live up to it.
How to use AI: Avoid the artificial stupidity at all times.
“When searched “Why guns are good,” it also prompted questionable responses, including potentially questionable statistics and reasoning. ”
Based on whose reasoning? These sorts of assertions are generally bullcrap intended to advance an agenda. If you don’t like guns, say so. Meanwhile, there are 400 million firearms in the US owned by close to a third of the population and around 20 million carry concealed.
So your opinion is not shared by a LOT of people who either enjoy firearm spots or are concerned about self-defense or both.
Wow. Ghacks still hasn’t fixed the broken comments system where old comments from a different article appear. Sad to see you slowly turn to dust since the buyout.
@Seeprime,
For over two weeks now,
I’ve been seeing “Comments” posted by subscribers appearing in different, unrelated articles.
https://www.ghacks.net/windows-11-update-stuck-fixed-for-good/#comment-4572991
https://www.ghacks.net/windows-11-update-stuck-fixed-for-good/#comment-4572951
For the time being,
it would be better to specify the “article name and URL” at the beginning of the post.
This guns comment came up in the Pixel watch repair post and I was bewildered as to what was the connection between the two.
goog = skynet
“human beings” = \slaves\
This info is so NOT correct.
I so do not want google in my life that I have NEVER downloaded chrome and I do NOT have ANY google accounts.
My browser is set to clear all cookies, cache and history every time I close it, which is every day, and I still get these world takeover login prompts on every site I go to.
So I CANT go to google accounts and turn it off.
If this info were truly accurate I wouldnt be getting these pop ups AT ALL.
Thanks @Ashwin for the article! :]
Anyone who continues to use these big tech scum’s cloud services deserves what they get.
Given Ghacks’ comments’ database problems I precise :
I’m commenting the article “Google is in trouble with YouTube Shorts – gHacks Tech News” by Emre Çitak
at [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/04/googles-youtube-shorts-problem/]
—
About the article’s question, “What do you think about YouTube Shorts?” (BTW first time I read here any other writer other than Martin Brinkmann directly asks the audience it’s opinion, and that’s just fine) :
YouTube Shorts may suit smartphones (which I don’t use) but on a PC they are not my cup of tea, to put it mildly.
From what I read a bit everywhere, opinions are shared : love or hate. For those who dislike many scripts and dedicated browser extensions have been developed to handle them (removal or redirect to standard video display).
I don’ view YouTube videos on YouTube but via a Piped or a Piped-Material YouTube front-end instance and these offer on search results and on channels the option to view Videos-Shorts-Livestreams-Playlists-Channels ; well, I practically never open the ‘Shorts’ display. I don’t like shorts (except in summer, hmm), I dislike the concept, fast-videos after fast-food, fast, faster … to bring what? Emptiness, IMO
Does that answer your question, @Emre Çitak :)
I despise YouTube Shorts. So much in fact, I use custom adblock rules in Brave Shields to remove that crap.
youtube.com##ytd-grid-video-renderer:has([href*=”shorts”])
youtube.com###dismissible:has([href*=”shorts”])
There’s an extension for Firefox and Chrome browsers called “Youtube-shorts block”, re-opens the video in a normal window. :)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-shorts-block/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/youtube-shorts-block/jiaopdjbehhjgokpphdfgmapkobbnmjp
ps. say NO to Shorts, it only encourage shooting vertical-videos which doesn’t go well with many desktop displays… except when shooting vertical objects, such as ahem… pretty ladies. :)
Page source shows that ghacks is still using WordPress as the platform. Knowing, more or less, how it works at the DB level I am not sure how one could mess up comments this badly. It is actually very difficult.
Google is the big leader of everything. Indeed it can actually buy Amazon, Disney, Netflix, X and whatever other company. I wonder what could happen if Google starts to build airspace ships in order to conquer the Moon. I bet that Google would be the first to offer free WiFi at the Moon. Please fix the comments.
This comment is inside the article:
[https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/04/what-is-google-synthid-and-how-does-it-work/]
This “analysis” is disappointingly shallow and trivial. Why not include other factors like job level, responsibilities, full-time/part-time, qualifications, etc.? Because the conclusions probably wouldn’t fit the current leftist/feminist narrative. You don’t find what you don’t look for.
Misleading statistics.
Wage should be based on the amount of time, works, thinking (brain > muscle), responsibilities etc
Not skin pigmentation or your genitalia. There could be correlations, but not causations.
“Google maintains that it provides a superior product”
That is also Mozilla’s official position in defense of Google against the people, on that question of search engine abuse of dominant position by Google.
The funniest part is that not only it’s false regarding actual competitors, but even among not-actual-competitors there are meta-search engines that use exactly the same engine, just minus the tracking, so Google is clearly the inferior one compared to those already. But maybe what Google is saying is that it is the surveillance and bubbling that would make their engine superior. False again even without considering the damage those do.
“Google increases Chromebook support to 10 years”
I mean that’s great and all, but imagine using a browser-based, highly internet-dependent OS such as chrome. I’ve never used chromeOS but have seen it in person and read about it, just seems like ultra-limited user experience which relies on the concept that “most things can be done in a browser”.
What is there to support? It just a glorified web browser.
“Google launched Chromebooks in 2012 as low-cost devices and the company has had great success in the education world, especially in the United States.”
Happy tracking for all those unsuspecting children. And help normalize surveillance for those young brains. Well done Google.
No, AltaVista’s Search engine wasn’t difficult to use in the mid-nineties, and Yahoo didn’t own AltaVista either during the 1990s. Yahoo!, was a Web Directory. I was alive then and have actually used those engines, during that era, I should know if they were easy to use. So tell the angels what you’ve seen, scarecrow shadow on the Nazarene.