Re-design without community buy-in will kill you

[Undertoad]

Fuckin -- man, it's too late in the day to write this properly, but--

Google Reader redesigned and they, like, fucked it up in multiple ways, and everyone is steaming mad. I'm part of that and this is what started me thinking about this.

Digg 4.0 is considered a gigantic failure in the history of link-sharing communities.

Fark lost the respect of a lot of readers when, after their redesign, one of the admins wrote the haters off with a "you'll get used to it" attitude.

Partly, the Internet is fickle. But there's something more deep about all this, and I think it's something we understand better than the rest of the Internets, in general --

This stuff is IMPORTANT to us, we have an EMOTIONAL connection to it. It is a different kind of social, but it is social, and we are mankind, ever social in nature as we are.

I have not said in a while, but I will say again: if the Cellar is ever down, just keep checking it. Hardware, software, troll or spammer, whatever troubles may occur, I believe we can keep them at bay. This place is important to a lot of us, and I feel a responsibility, far larger than the tip mug, to keep it as a community for as long as possible.

[BigV]

Let me see if I'm understanding you...

An internet entity with no buy-in can not exist.

Yeah. I'd agree with that. You can have all the wires and processors and super duper hertz, but without the people.. the only buzz you'll have is from the fluorescent lights.

[Pico and ME]

Thank you UT

[Lamplighter]

UT, I'm very interested, but I have to admit I don't understand what things
Google has done/not done with the software you describe.

Several months ago I recognized something was happening at Google,
but did not appreciate what was going on.
It became a little more clear when the (new?) CEO announced
the pending shutdown of several Google projects.
I was bothered by the loss of the Real Estate program associated with Google Maps.
But that's bye the bye. It's gone now.

Would you please take another stab at explaining (to us laymen)
what is going on that is not good for you and yours.

[Pete Zicato]

Google also recently removed the meaning of '+' from searches. It used to make sense. Use '-' to only show pages without the word. Use '+' to show pages only if the word was included. They still honor '-' but took out the code for '+'.

They didn't provide any alternative method of forcing this. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

They didn't provide any alternative method of forcing this. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

you can put the word in quotes and it will do the exact same thing + did. You just have to hit that extra key to put the end quote in there. So there is an additional keystroke.

[Clodfobble]

I'll be damned. I hadn't realized that. I had thought including AND was still working, and I had to come up with a very complicated test case to be sure, but

giants AND onomatopoeia AND cheese AND fishing AND calliope

comes up with 2,230,000 results, which seems fishy on its own, but making it

giants AND onomatopoeia AND cheese AND fishing AND calliope AND Ireland

increases the results to 2,250,000 results. It's broken. That's irritating.

[glatt]

Well
"giants" "onomatopoeia" "cheese" "fishing" "calliope" comes up with 4,620 hits

and
"giants" "onomatopoeia" "cheese" "fishing" "calliope" "Ireland" gives you 3,930 hits

How many were you expecting?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Google also recently removed the meaning of '+' from searches. It used to make sense. Use '-' to only show pages without the word. Use '+' to show pages only if the word was included. They still honor '-' but took out the code for '+'.

This is true.

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

They didn't provide any alternative method of forcing this.

This is false. The new syntax is to enclose the desired word in double quotes, just as you previously would have preceded the desired word with a +.

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This is debatable.

[BigV]

well, I'm a slow poster. :d'oh!:

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

well, I'm a slow poster. :d'oh!:

You've mentioned this before. How do you read the Cellar? Did you open this thread in one tab, and then open a bunch of other tabs to read up on Google search protocol? That's the main way that I end up posting slowly. Too many tabs open.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

You've mentioned this before. How do you read the Cellar? Did you open this thread in one tab, and then open a bunch of other tabs to read up on Google search protocol? That's the main way that I end up posting slowly. Too many tabs open.

Actually, in this case, my slowposting was due to a deviation from my normal cellar reading style. In this case, I simply knew the answer, having experienced the phenomenon PZ described, and quickly posted my answer. "Slow poster" is a poor description of the actual post effect. "opening my mouth before reading what was already discusssed" would be much more correct. I could have deleted my post, but I very rarely do that.

As for how I normally read the cellar, I'm pressing the "new posts" link frequently. I then read from the oldest to the newest, refreshing as I go. When I see a thread I'm following with particular interest come up toward the top with a fresh post, I will sometimes read that one, bumping it out of my oldest to newest general consumption.

I do sometimes open a thread in a new tab if I am working on a long or detailed post. This particular computer and the trackpad has given me extreme grief a couple times by taking an incidental brush on the trackpad as a navigation gesture and removing my textual input to that point like a popped soap bubble. Then, I curse. Then, I restart with my text going into a separate editor, to be composed and then copied to the quick reply box.

welll... plenty of detail there. The point is that I usually try to read *as much as possible* before replying, but in this case, I just shot from the lip.

[glatt]

I click on new posts, and then open a handful of threads in new tabs. Then close them when I'm done.

[Pete Zicato]

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that Google posted a different substitution when they first did this. I posted a search like:

first second +third

and they proposed:

"first second third"

which isn't the same thing. I'll have to try the quote thing for single words.

[classicman]

Off Topic/

Originally Posted by glatt

Did you open this thread in one tab, and then open a bunch of other tabs to read up on Google search protocol? That's the main way that I end up posting slowly. Too many tabs open.

Originally Posted by glatt

I click on new posts, and then open a handful of threads in new tabs. Then close them when I'm done.

Exactly what I do. Happens all the time on an active thread where I respond and in the meantime there have been multiple posts in between.
/Off Topic