I have a bit of a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory as to why Google is copying Bing in several respects recently. From a game-theoretic perspective, it is to Google's advantage for the search industry to be as homogeneous as possible, because they're the incumbent.
As long as there's a difference between the major search engines, there's at least some sort of reason to go with one of the minor engines, for some fraction of people, some fraction of the time. If all the search engines are the same, Google wins because no one has a reason to switch and Google has the advantage of inertia. It is possible that it's better for Google to be identical to Bing rather than superior to Bing, especially depending on how situational or subjective that "superior" happens to be.
While I'm not a huge fan of Google, I don't think they would intentionally have a dick-ish strategy like that. However, I do think that their test-driven nature could push them in this direction anyways even if they don't intend to. Every time they try a feature and people don't like it, they can switch to Bing and Google gets the feedback... unless it's a clone of a Bing feature, in which case people can't really switch. So bad ideas that are clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage.
This is not to say that cloning Bing features is always a bad thing. I actually prefer Bing. I'm just saying that clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage during testing, regardless of how good they are in an absolute sense.
The solution, obviously, is Duck Duck Go. Or, more generally, if the search landscape is less of a duopoly, this phenomenon wouldn't exist as much.
No, the solution isn't that obvious. Even with recent changes, regardless of who's copying who, I still much prefer Google to DDG. The layout makes it easy to traverse more results more quickly, and the typography and colors are a lot more crisp, among other things. All this DDG talk is getting tiring.
It's not tiring for people who want to analyze where other companies are doing well or poorly. An independent willing to take on the execution challenges of a generalized search engine is truly rare anymore. What others good examples are there to watch besides DDG?
I have a lot of respect for Gabriel. If I'm able to say that in one line, then so be it.
Edit:
lmkg's comment didn't say everyone should use DDG for all search needs. It pointed out the value of independent alternatives. One liner or not, it's valid and relevant. DDG is valuable to the discussion because it specifically attempts to innovate rather than copycat the status quo.
Wgj is correct, and I meant the DDG comment to be tongue-in-cheek. I think that became less clear because I segued into a serious point, sorry for the confusion. My point was only that a third search engine means that Google homogenizing the search industry isn't a good strategy anymore. DDG does that merely be existing, outside of anything else it does to differentiate itself (or rather, it would if it had more market share).
I tend to think the whole "Google copying Bing" thing is terrible for Google's image. Bing is not a major player in the search field. Why is Google acting like Bing's the one to beat?
And if they do insist on copying Bing, at least they can copy the right stuff (brilliant UI elements like much improved image search, with endless scrolling).
You're right, it is terrible for Google's image. The way you give a competitor credibility is through this kind of obvious imitation. Google is sending a clear message that it believes Bing is worth imitating in numerous ways. What's worse, Google is highlighting Bing's strengths- which is unfortunate, as Google is the superior search engine. Bad move.
Might be over-analysis. Perhaps google just heard that people like pictures on the bing page, so they tried to push it on google for a day, both to see what happens and increase igoogle. i was surprised how fired up people got.
I was thinking about it from Game-theoretic perspective. This is too early move, given Bing has less than 15% share.
Bing is giving comparable search results in terms of quality - although I found their UI glossy and cluttered. Now Google is trying to minimize the differences between the two search engines in terms of UI/navigation. So I now have a lower-barrier to switch. Clearly this move has back-fired and probably Bing should clean up their UI to grab people in-between like me.
The day Search Engine becomes a commodity, this market is over.
I tried the background image, but never see it since I use firefox search bar. I would guess that most advanced google users use an interface akin to the search bar wherein you don't see the google front page.
frankly, its worse than bing. the page readability is miserable. Still moving the mouse to see the page load is my biggest gripe yet. That combined with the fact that it loses the search keyboards sometimes when I hit the back button (on firefox).
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted, but in any case, I didn't mean any disrespect to what the quote is about or to the parent poster. His comment just reminded me of this (from a purely stylistic point of view -- the subject matters are in completely separate universes when it comes to gravity), that's all.
I didn't downvote you, but I suspect that you were downvoted because regardless of whether or not you intended to be disrespectful to the quote, people feel that it's disrespectful anyway.
I would be hard-pressed to disagree with them - making any allusions to the WWII holocaust when we're talking about stylistic preferences for a search page is in pretty bad taste from where I'm sitting.
You're right. Sorry if I offended. The parent comment only triggered the style of the quote in my memory, and in that context I didn't really think about the content. But looking back, it's probably in bad taste, especially among strangers. If we knew each other, I'm sure it would be clear I meant no disrespect. Point taken.
I think a lot of people are missing the brilliance of this.
They're making it intentionally bad. For instance, I set a very cute picture of my niece as my google background...but it takes about an extra second to load the page now, so I removed it.
If anybody starts thinking about switching to bing, they're going to see the pictures, remember how much it sucked on google, and go back to the "good" google.
I was about to post this. Alienate users for 1 day by showing them how crap backgrounds can be, everyone hates it (even if just on principle) and then if they ever visit Bing they'll say 'this is like the day that Google went crap', negative feelings all round towards it.
It sounds like maybe you're right. When I saw this on the Google home page the first thing I did was move my mouse about to look for the 'disable background image' link. Then I went into my Search Settings. Then I thought it must be a joke. Not April. Google, again, against what I wanted, hiding the useful links until you move your mouse because users found them "distracting", are contradicting themselves 100% here. That is, if they really do do user testing, and weren't just bullshitting. Maybe they did that user testing with live users and I just wasn't online at that time. Maybe this is the same thing. They test it for a day to see people's reactions. That's good science but treating your users shittily if they can't opt out. So I'm wondering if maybe it is a coke classic.
On the web especially, I've been conditioned not to start typing into boxes until the page fully finishes loading, because onload js stuff often repositions the cursor, which is annoying to have happen in the middle of typing something.
Free linkbait idea: somebody should make a few mockups of Google taking "design inspiration" from iconic elements of other famous brands. Google redone in wall-to-wall Coke Red with a cursive logo. Google with the O's replaced by the Obama logo and a stylized flag background. Google over a silohuette of a twenty-something typical along on a keyboard with stylish headphones on.
You could title this All Of These Are Better Ideas Than Taking Design Direction From Microsoft. (I say this purely for branding -- I kind of like the Bing look myself.)
Followed by "We're sorry - Our sponsor no longer wishes BitTorrent results to appear in this listing." (Or insert latest large ISP whipping target here).
Nah, this is pretty clearly a response to Bing. In fact, I've always suspected that the pretty images on Bing's homepage are a significant part of it's growing success. Most people just don't associate with Google's clean, academic approach to design.
I think it's moreso that some users haven't signed up for a google account (there must(!) be some) because they only use the search function and that's it. Well the background will jar them out of their complacency. When they go to change it, they'll need to sign in...serving up thousands of new google account users.
This doesn't make any sense. If all these users do is search, there's no benefit in them having a Google account. Sure there's saved search functionality, the data from which can be sold to advertisers, but Google already tracks searches in cookies anyway.
If this were the goal, it would just alienate users with the background, and inconveniencing them with a forced signup for next-to-no return.
Update June 10, 11:31AM: Last week, we launched the ability to set an image ofusers’ choosing as the background for the Google homepage. Today, we ran a special “doodle” that showcased this functionality by featuring a series ofimages as the background for our homepage. We had planned to run an explanationof the showcase alongside it—in the form of a link on our homepage. Due to a
bug, the explanatory link did not appear for most users. As a result, many
people thought we had permanently changed our homepage, so we decided to stop
today’s series early. We appreciate your feedback and patience as we
experiment and iterate.
When I went to google now (10PM EST) I didn't see a background, only a link at the bottom for setting one. This comment explains why. Thanks for sharing (upvote).
I've noticed a pattern every time any website launches a redesign: users immediately and vehemently dislike it; a couple of months pass; everyone looks back and wonders what the fuss was and would hate to go back to the old design.
I seem to be missing the part of DNA or conditioning that causes most humans to react negatively when anything familiar changes. I'm one of a rare breed who sees changes as intriguing or exciting (to a fault, I almost always like redesigns at first).
Crappy rotating background images are not a feature. I always remove them from every product, desktop, tool I have. I will NOT be "wondering what the fuss was" in a month.
So you have a preference for removing distracting cosmetic (non-functional) features. So do I. I probably will turn the background image off, but I could comfortably live with it.
Maybe I'm inferring too much, but your use of "crappy" and capitalising "NOT" suggests to me that this feature makes you angry. I think it's worth considering whether your reaction is a purely logical one, or partly an emotional one.
Pretty easily. If it's distracting or somehow bad for me, because of the aesthetics, I could dislike it for logical reasons.
If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R. Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for business.
Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...
It changes my perception of the browser state, learned through years of familiarization. That I could get used to. But its a bad idea on so many other levels. Its an order of magnitude harder to compress, bogging down remote-terminal operation. It scrambles the desktop metaphor - I have multiple monitors, the browser is just one tool that is open, and now this circus-themed "background" stands out like a beacon but with no functional value whatsoever. It obscures controls (as widely discussed elsewhere) which is plain bad app design. It increases (marginally) load time. It "fades in" creating a distraction for the power user - my desktop doesn't dance around otherwise unless something significant is happening. Honestly, I have to wonder if you aren't emotionally defending Google, because these are mostly obvious reasons to detest this "feature".
>I've noticed a pattern every time any website launches a redesign: users immediately and vehemently dislike it; a couple of months pass; everyone looks back and wonders what the fuss was and would hate to go back to the old design. -spatulon
I've noticed a bias against change too, but sometimes the redesign is just worse. For example, the wait for mouse and then fade-in change to Google is just as obnoxious today as when it went live.
But there is an argument to be made that this makes google look less clean. Even if the background is removed, there is an option in the lower-left corner, begging me to click it and look what is there. I don't really like it but it doesn't mark very high on my care-o-meter
Google should have learnt from Buzz. People do not like to opted in without their consent. If they had made changing background exclusive, a lot of people (even those complaining now) would want to try it out.
But what I have found out is that I rarely use the Google homepage any more. I usually search through the search bars on Chrome or Firefox, so I didn't notice the change until I saw it on Twitter.
Whoever is in charge for this decision at Google, this shows very poor branding, customer and marketing skills. This looks like improvisation motivated by despair and panic. A junior's move...
I am switching to the www.google.com/firefox home page, it still has the lean dan mean looks.
As they say in French 'On ne fait pas le bonheur des gens contre leur gré', which translates to: you can't shove happiness in people against their will...
Isn't it more interesting that the top trending search term is the name of the photographer? Doesn't that mean more people like it enough to be curious about who took the pictures than are looking to shut it off?
I thought this was a clever way to get people to sign up for a google account if they didn't already have one for mail/voice/youtube/etc. The background was annoying, but if you wanted to change it, you had to create an account and use your own photo. Then it leaves you logged in, and they get search histories tied to individual accounts.
That's probably just paranoia, but seems like a side-effect they won't mind even if it wasn't their main intent. It's also part of the reason I won't stay logged into people's free webmail services after I'm done reading my mail, though.
The Google background never even rolled out to me yet. My browser homepage is iGoogle, but when I do a Google search from Firefox's search box, I see the generic Google Web search homepage, and I don't see any background image at all, and never have yet.
Google guy 1 = Why do you people love google?
Google guy 2 = Its fast and uncluttered.
Google guy 1 = Good, what we famous for?
Google guy 2 = A white screen and just a search box
Google guy 1 = So what what should be do to the design?
Google guy 2 = Leave it?
Google guy 1 = No fuc* that I'm bored lets copy Bing and piss everyone off!
My friend was complaining about the background today. She said she couldn't get rid of it. She was even going to upload an 800x600 white image.
I've never seen the background image and I can't even get it to appear or find a setting for it anywhere. (???)
It's kind of like how my Google News was all weird for like 4 days, and then went back to normal. I do understand a/b testing, but it's strange being an unwitting, unwilling guinea pig for something I use every day like G News.
Flippant comments aside, I'm entitled to use a competitor's product instead if I don't like how Google is treating me or the changes they are making. This is likely not the goal that Google was seeking to accomplish. I'm sure you understand that Google does derive revenue from visitors, correct?
If they want to A/B test something like that on a signed in, daily visiting member, they should offer a small explanation and an opt in/opt out option.
If people opt in and opt out, then they are testing the interface for people who are willing to opt in or opt out instead of everyone.
Me, I really don't care. Background image? No background image? Who cares. I type something into Google and I get where I want to go. And their other services like Android, Voice, Calendar, and Reader work for me, so I continue to use them. People waste too much time caring about things that don't matter. ("OH NOES, but what if I'm on the moon and really need to Google search! Loading the background would be too slow! You Are Not On The Moon.")
Ha Awesome! Totally fits the stereotype of Google being the superior engineering company that has no clue when in comes to appealing design. I mean when you look at this YOU JUST KNOW open-source linux guys are responsible for it:
I don't appreciated the dig at open-source linux guys, but it is true that image, one of the defaults they chose, is just horrid. What in the hell were they thinking!
I had no idea it even changed until I saw the stories in Google reader. I'm surprised by how many people are complaining and thus still use the Google homepage instead of the search bar in their browser. With all the major browsers having one (Safari, IE, Chrome, FF), what is the benefit of going to google.com directly? Legitimate question.
People are forgetting about Pavlov and the basic idea of 'image' or 'brand', sacred to advertising. When I think about searching something on the internet, I subconsciously think about a blank Google search page. If that's no longer an option, I am no longer going to use Google by default. (Forget that I know that Google is a better engine. Now I'm thinking -- maybe I should try Bing, and see what advantages it has.)
People working on search and UX at Google probably think about Bing much more than the millions of people who use Google regularly. And thanks to Google's attempt to prematurely optimize (forcing people to try a new background based on local maxima tests), they've now accelerated the long curve of leveling the playing field.
Basic psychology 101 though. Same thing applies to other tech companies. Tread very lightly around any type of modifications to the core feature set and always make it optional at first.
This is a great real world example of why you shouldn't pay attention to what your competitors are doing, but develop your own product the way you envision it.
Regardless of their intent, the truth of the matter is it looks like they're leaving behind the simplicity that made them successful because a competitor is gaining market share.
Only after reading your post, I found a link labelled "Change Background Image" effectively camouflaged on the bottom left of the page, but this only allows me to select an alternative but equally obtrusive image.
There does not appear to be any immediate way to eliminate the background image entirely and revert to the clean, usable design that I expect from Google.
After you change the background image, the words change to 'Remove background image' which seems unintuitive since it puts the first background image back up.
The text only came up when I started using my mouse - if I just started typing, I would never have seen it. Also, the text was white, and happened to be positioned over a very light / white part of the picture, so I can understand how it could be missed.
They're pretty easy to spot if you've actually set the background image. If not, you get a default image and there's no way to go back to the white background other than uploading a white graphic.
I don't understand why Google is so into background image? Having feature is a good thing but imposing it on people is going to make them angry. I generally keep my browser homepage as Google, but this morning because of this background I had to change my homepage for today.
"Remove google background" button doesn't actually remove the background. It defaults to a background with a landscape and a metal slide? So, how do you remove the background?!
EDIT: even if it is forced for 24 hours, at least put a message up on the site or remove the non-working buttons!
I can see why non-technical users might go to the google homepage for searching... but I'm suprised geeks ever go there. I just type search queries type into my Firefox search box, which is just a keyboard shortcut away. No background images for me!
No surprise. It is sad to see how going public is now making them force people to sign up for a google account. I'm switching to http://duckduckgo.com/
What I find most notable is that this appears to be the first time Google has ever required a user session to interact with the home page by prompting a login screen in order to change the background.
I really don't see what the big deal is. People, in general, like things like desktop backgrounds. If people's main compelling reason for trying/using Bing was the pretty pictures, I can not blame Google for giving most people the pretty that they want. Talk about an easy feature to implement. Seriously how many power users actually use the Google homepage. I for one can not remember the last time I saw Google's home page. If you do not want pretty Google, revert to original Google.
I'm pretty sure it's one of these one-day pranks google loves to do, like the pacman "logo", just a bit more intrusive and annoying then usual. Well, I hope so at least...
It can't possibly not be, if you'll pardon the double negative. There's no way they'd switch to white "Google" text after so many years' investment in the bright colours.
(Yes, I know Apple removed its colours, but that's different.)
My first thought was "This is much slower and uglier than Bing". Since Bing's results have been comparable to Google's for the searches I make (so there's really no difference between the two for me) that's where I've been today.
For one day, at least, Google managed to change my ingrained habits and switch to their search competitor. I might even stay there.
Probably not the effect they were looking to have.
You login to change/add image. And google can store your searches to your username. I know with little bit trickery it can be achieved by them without you logging in, but by logging in and then searching you explicitly give permission to store the searches I think.
Bing puts a semi-transparent rectangle behind their text to make it readable against the background image. Google didn't do that. So much unreadable text makes the page seem sloppy and unprofessional. More evidence that Google sucks at design.
It is a little annoying, but I usually use Google from within the FF search box, so not a biggie.
Slightly off topic; I never understood why they made elements "Fade in" on their page, either. I assume there is a reason other than it "looking cool"?
I haven't used vanilla google.com in a long time. My homepage is google.com/ig and normally when I search I just use the search bar built in to Chrome (or Firefox, etc).
I go to Google.com and see no background image. Still plain white background. Thus, I don't understand the fuss. Do you have to enable it explicitly? Anyone else had the same experience?
As long as there's a difference between the major search engines, there's at least some sort of reason to go with one of the minor engines, for some fraction of people, some fraction of the time. If all the search engines are the same, Google wins because no one has a reason to switch and Google has the advantage of inertia. It is possible that it's better for Google to be identical to Bing rather than superior to Bing, especially depending on how situational or subjective that "superior" happens to be.
While I'm not a huge fan of Google, I don't think they would intentionally have a dick-ish strategy like that. However, I do think that their test-driven nature could push them in this direction anyways even if they don't intend to. Every time they try a feature and people don't like it, they can switch to Bing and Google gets the feedback... unless it's a clone of a Bing feature, in which case people can't really switch. So bad ideas that are clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage.
This is not to say that cloning Bing features is always a bad thing. I actually prefer Bing. I'm just saying that clones of Bing features have a statistical advantage during testing, regardless of how good they are in an absolute sense.
The solution, obviously, is Duck Duck Go. Or, more generally, if the search landscape is less of a duopoly, this phenomenon wouldn't exist as much.