Google timer(google.com)
google.com
Google timer
https://www.google.com/#q=timer+for+10+seconds
156 comments
Google software engineer here. These gripes are legitimate. We want our users be able to depend on our features and services, and if you can't do that, we're letting you down.
But I would beg for a bit more patience and understanding on this one point: it's not like we have one server that all our users connect to. When new features roll out, it's inevitable that some users will see the new features before others do. Also, there are often complex legal issues affecting how products are released in different countries. Okay, that's two points. :-)
But I would beg for a bit more patience and understanding on this one point: it's not like we have one server that all our users connect to. When new features roll out, it's inevitable that some users will see the new features before others do. Also, there are often complex legal issues affecting how products are released in different countries. Okay, that's two points. :-)
On the subject of definitions, I wish I could set up OS X's 3-finger tap dictionary lookup to give me definitions in other languages. It would be one of the most useful things ever for learning another language. I could start trying to read French or German and triple tap a word and have it give me the translation to English and the dictionary definition in German (which would pop up a window where you could three finger tap again for a word in the definition that you don't yet know)
Wish granted: Open Dictionary.app, go to Preferences, and select extra reference sources. German and French are included, among others.
It still works for me, I use it constantly.
Have you blocked javascript? All that kind of stuff disappeared for me when I installed noscript
Have you blocked javascript?
I believe you have identified the cause. Switching javascript off and on between queries makes the define: operator stop working and then return to working. I block cookies and don't log into google in both cases.
Silly, lazy, javascript-loving google, it used to work just fine without javascript and I don't see anything particularly special about how it works now that should require javascript either.
I believe you have identified the cause. Switching javascript off and on between queries makes the define: operator stop working and then return to working. I block cookies and don't log into google in both cases.
Silly, lazy, javascript-loving google, it used to work just fine without javascript and I don't see anything particularly special about how it works now that should require javascript either.
I don't think laziness has anything to do with it - they want you to have JS turned on. For instance Google Analytics, their powerful tracking tool, is crippled without it.
you need javascript to use the modern web. If you turn it off, stop whining that you've lost functionality. You didn't lose anything, you turned it off.
It's fine when the functionality actually requires JavaScript. The trouble being discussed is when displaying plaintext requires JavaScript for no particularly good reason.
It's 2013. I don't think it's especially unreasonable to assume JavaScript is universally available when developing a feature. As hnriot said, if you choose to browse the web with JavaScript disabled, you accept the fact that large swaths of the 2013 web will not work.
It is 2013 and the 4th most popular add-on to Firefox is NoScript.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...
Essentially all of the browser exploits over the last decade have had javascript as a necessary component. Irresponsible use of javascript forces your users to expose themselves to attacks for your convenience. That is abusive and is the kind of thing that will drive away your most sophisticated users who are likely to be be adoption trend-setters for any endeavor not primarily pop-culture oriented.
Google's inertia means they don't have to care, but nearly everybody else has a lot more to lose from alienating those users.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...
Essentially all of the browser exploits over the last decade have had javascript as a necessary component. Irresponsible use of javascript forces your users to expose themselves to attacks for your convenience. That is abusive and is the kind of thing that will drive away your most sophisticated users who are likely to be be adoption trend-setters for any endeavor not primarily pop-culture oriented.
Google's inertia means they don't have to care, but nearly everybody else has a lot more to lose from alienating those users.
Doesn't work for me neither. Might be because I'm in Europe. The given URL redirects to www.google.de
I'm in The Netherlands, it redirects to .nl, and it works for me.
I'm in the UK, works fine for me
some·thing
/ˈsəmˌTHiNG/
Pronoun
A thing that is unspecified or unknown: "we stopped for something to eat".
Adverb
Used for emphasis with a following adjective functioning as an adverb: "my back hurts something terrible".
Synonyms
pronoun. anything - some - somewhat - any
adverb. rather - somewhat - some
More info - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
Doesn't work for me as well.
Didn't come up for me on .com, only on .ie.
I'm not sure why exactly, but I really hate this. I hate it that sometimes results have a news link and sometimes they don't. I hate that youtube suggestions are tailored to me. There are rational reasons. I want the thing I use to be there when I try to find it. But, I dislike it beyond the inconvenience. It just feels wrong, like I'm being probed.
I'm not sure why exactly, but I really hate this. I hate it that sometimes results have a news link and sometimes they don't. I hate that youtube suggestions are tailored to me. There are rational reasons. I want the thing I use to be there when I try to find it. But, I dislike it beyond the inconvenience. It just feels wrong, like I'm being probed.
I think the "tailoring to me" problem can be solved by logging out of google and doing the search (or search in incognito mode if you are a chrome user).
However, I wish there was a way to turn off personalized search. That way, Google can remember what I searched (when I am signed in) for but not give me tailored results..
FYI, you can quickly and easily toggle between "private"/"personalized" results and "global" results, right on the search page, by clicking the toggle button with the person and the globe to the top-right of the search results:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2410479?hl=en
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2410479?hl=en
Ha, yeah.
When I'm in the US, I deliberately navigate to a European Google site (usually google.co.uk) in order to get their onebox flight schedule search results. I really enjoy seeing a full timetable of published flights for the week when I do a search for "[flights lhr fra]". Doing the same search in the US, and seeing the new Google Flights ad instead of the old timetable onebox, is infuriating.
When I'm in the US, I deliberately navigate to a European Google site (usually google.co.uk) in order to get their onebox flight schedule search results. I really enjoy seeing a full timetable of published flights for the week when I do a search for "[flights lhr fra]". Doing the same search in the US, and seeing the new Google Flights ad instead of the old timetable onebox, is infuriating.
That's actually pretty ridiculous if you think about it. Almost any other website displays the same info wherever you're from and if it doesn't, it's considered an anti-pattern (and rightly so).
I remember, back in the day, Google didn't used to do this. That was 8-10 years ago, though. At first it was interesting, a curiosity, seemingly clever. But from the start it was annoying (at least, it was, in a global community centred around ways to search the web) because there is no easy way to select what "view" of the website you want to see. (there were ways but they kept changing, and I didn't keep up)
Maybe that is the worst anti-pattern. Most websites that change their entire behaviour depending on what IP you came from, at least offer the option to select a different behaviour, or specify from what locale you want your perspective.
Best would be if one could simply link to such a perspective, so that this article would actually make sense to everyone, instead of just the people that live in the "correct" part of the world ... :)
I remember, back in the day, Google didn't used to do this. That was 8-10 years ago, though. At first it was interesting, a curiosity, seemingly clever. But from the start it was annoying (at least, it was, in a global community centred around ways to search the web) because there is no easy way to select what "view" of the website you want to see. (there were ways but they kept changing, and I didn't keep up)
Maybe that is the worst anti-pattern. Most websites that change their entire behaviour depending on what IP you came from, at least offer the option to select a different behaviour, or specify from what locale you want your perspective.
Best would be if one could simply link to such a perspective, so that this article would actually make sense to everyone, instead of just the people that live in the "correct" part of the world ... :)
I got this working by creating a new user in Chrome and searching from my default local https://www.google.com.hk/ site.
The following attempts all failed: logging out, a different browser, /ncr , incognito, and tor browser. The US site on the new user account also didn't work. Interestingly, all of the u/jfoster examples worked the first time.
The following attempts all failed: logging out, a different browser, /ncr , incognito, and tor browser. The US site on the new user account also didn't work. Interestingly, all of the u/jfoster examples worked the first time.
My experience is the same.
I noticed that Google Flights ad box only pops up when your query is served by Google Flights (eg it starts in north america).
So "flights to LON" will not bring up a schedule, while "flights from LON" will. And for most of my purposes, I only care about the destinations, not exact times, so this works fine.
So "flights to LON" will not bring up a schedule, while "flights from LON" will. And for most of my purposes, I only care about the destinations, not exact times, so this works fine.
quick tip : google.com/ncr for no country redirect.
This is something different than just being redirected to a different domain. I already have it set up so google.com/ncr is my main google page
It doesn't work on .com for me, it doesn't work on .dk (I'm from denmark). Doesn't work on .nl which someone reported worked for him. It's weird
Also tried it in both firefox and chrome.
And someone else mentioned it didn't work for him without a google account, I've tried both logged in and logged out
It doesn't work on .com for me, it doesn't work on .dk (I'm from denmark). Doesn't work on .nl which someone reported worked for him. It's weird
Also tried it in both firefox and chrome.
And someone else mentioned it didn't work for him without a google account, I've tried both logged in and logged out
Never knew it, thanks!
You don't know how many times I struggled with getting good result, because I was searching for something in English and Google keep redirecting me to my country's edition (and thus searching on webpages from my country/with my language).
When I was overseas, I just used google.us, which redirects to google.com, since I only searched in English, I didn't speak the language of the country I was living in.
It doesn't work when logged in to google services. (I think it's been 2 years or something since it doesn't work anymore in that case)
Thanks for that tip! I never knew about it!
Didn't work for me when logged into Google Apps but did in another browser.
It's not perfect though, this link will start a timer for 1 minute, not 24 hours and 1 minute:
https://www.google.com/#q=timer+23+hours+61+minutes
https://www.google.com/#q=timer+23+hours+61+minutes
Huh. Too bad they didn't test it even to this basic level.
Works better than timer / alert functionality of Google Now which is horribly broken. (At first I thought it was just rounding errors, with 25 minutes being set to 24 minutes, but I can't explain a 3 minute difference easily with rounding errors, which has happened to me. )
Announced over 6 weeks ago at http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/08/google-timer.html
I had to reset all my .google. cookies to work
logged with the Google user it works, but when I sign in with the secondary google apps for domains user it stops working for some reason
This is what they're working on while shutting down Reader? Guh. And yes, I will make a similar comment every time they roll out some inconsequential new product or feature.
For the Google QA person who is inevitably reading this:
"timer for 23 hours and 59 minutes and 60 seconds"
Yet another case of Google inconsistencies.
Doesn't work on Chrome for Android
No fortnight support?
doesn't work as expected in Bulgaria
Actually this seems ridiculously convenient, if I'm sitting at my computer (which I almost always am). Easier than picking up my phone and setting a timer, even.
Nothing happens at that page for me. Could the reason be that I'm redirected to google.se (which does not have this feature, yet)?
It showed for me in Chrome, but not in Firefox. The same with Google's new flat icon/grid services homepage, actually.
It didn't work for me on Epic, but it did in Firefox.
[deleted]
Google probably review their top searches periodically to determine utility related keywords and custom fit solutions to them.
It seems that if they continue to do things this way, sooner or later, Google is likely to replace thousands of utility websites.
This seems like a change in their philosophy from sending users to other websites in as little time as possible, to using Google as a portal.
Interestingly, this change in philosophy by Yahoo from a search engine to a portal was what made Yahoo lose out to Google.
It seems that if they continue to do things this way, sooner or later, Google is likely to replace thousands of utility websites.
This seems like a change in their philosophy from sending users to other websites in as little time as possible, to using Google as a portal.
Interestingly, this change in philosophy by Yahoo from a search engine to a portal was what made Yahoo lose out to Google.
Except that this is a very different approach to being a portal.
Yahoo filled their front-page with items that wouldn't be relevant except for some tiny percentage of the time, such that even if the front page had what you were looking for, it was like a needle in a haystack. Google's approach here is only revealing the portal functionality in response to a specific request for it. It won't kill them, and may even be a competitive advantage for them over any competitor search engine that has superior ranking algorithms.
Yahoo filled their front-page with items that wouldn't be relevant except for some tiny percentage of the time, such that even if the front page had what you were looking for, it was like a needle in a haystack. Google's approach here is only revealing the portal functionality in response to a specific request for it. It won't kill them, and may even be a competitive advantage for them over any competitor search engine that has superior ranking algorithms.
The philosophy of Google was not to send users to other websites in as little time as possible. It was to give users the correct answer in as little time as possible. If the answer can fit in a tiny utility tool on google.com itself, than that's faster for the user and it's actually a better experience.
I think all these kind of searches fall under the "conversational search" goals that they are now aiming for.
Conversion: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=150+GBP+in+USD Weather: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=temp+in+london
Conversion: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=150+GBP+in+USD Weather: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=temp+in+london
Should'nt they try doing some kind of partnership with WolframAlpha which is way ahead in NLP and producing useful results. I would love to see WolframAlpha results integrated within Google when they can be interpreted by the software.
A script I use for this occasionally:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
done = Time.now + ARGV[0].to_i
while(true) do
sleep(10)
`say "Time's up!"` if Time.now > done
end
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'time'
done = Time.parse(ARGV[0])
while(true) do
sleep(10)
`say "Time's up!"` if Time.now > done
endMy alarm clock 15 years ago was:
$ sleep 28800; while :; do cat /etc/termcap; done > /dev/audio
My occasional alarm clock is:
$ sleep 8h; mpg123 <something>/pandemonic_hyperblast.mp3
I always used my stereos build in timer and a death metal CD for the same effect :)
But now my stereo and my CDs gather dust and I (and my neighbours) do not miss them.
But now my stereo and my CDs gather dust and I (and my neighbours) do not miss them.
Heh, I've certainly done the same, albeit with different songs...
waking up to anaal nathrakh everyday would probably put me into depression after two weeks.
If you want to break it, search for "timer for 23 hours 59 minutes 60 seconds" ... For some reason the code seems to be configured to max out at 24 hours. I am too busy dealing with my own broken JavaScript code to take a look, but maybe someone here can view source and figure out why they made that decision?
> but maybe someone here can view source and figure out why they made that decision?
Chances are it's a classic case of choosing a register size such that the time counter wraps around at 86,400 seconds, and to avoid this, they would have to explicitly include days -- and chose not to.
Chances are it's a classic case of choosing a register size such that the time counter wraps around at 86,400 seconds, and to avoid this, they would have to explicitly include days -- and chose not to.
I'm guessing they decided they had to put a limit somewhere to ensure nothing broke, and decided arbitrarily on that.
Well, you can set the timer to 99 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds if you type in the values, so it doesn't seem to make sense that 23:59:60 would break it. I'm really curious as to why that happens.
it looks like some default limits are in place for this. Here's what I found:
Max for seconds: 999 Max for minutes: 999 Max for hours: 23
Max for seconds: 999 Max for minutes: 999 Max for hours: 23
it's times like these where I wish they still had the "Beta" in their logo..
turns out "timer for 23 hours 99 minutes" breaks it too :P
more testing google.. more testing
more testing google.. more testing
Interesting side effect. There's this web site:
http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/
which comes up top of the google search results for "timer for 1 hour" for me. Now there is absolutely no way they can compete with Google's own offering from an SEO perspective.
While this example is trivial to some extent, does it set a precedent that while you can advertise and compete with Google, they can always have the unfair advantage at being top of the list.
which comes up top of the google search results for "timer for 1 hour" for me. Now there is absolutely no way they can compete with Google's own offering from an SEO perspective.
While this example is trivial to some extent, does it set a precedent that while you can advertise and compete with Google, they can always have the unfair advantage at being top of the list.
Lesson: don't put to much stock into a product that can be replaced by a few lines of code on a search result page.
A counter-point to your argument. While I know Google offers calculator functions, and unit of measurement conversions, I usually don't know the exact format to use which will key the special functions. Typically searching Google for "percentage calculator" or something similar takes you to a site with a clear UI and instruction. Often times this is quicker than randomly entering searches into Google, hoping that my wording will spawn that special function.
So while yes, it's scary/crazy to launch a web app that is so easily clonable for Google, the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. This leaves room for simple web apps who do a better job (or at least have a simple UI that is understandable).
So while yes, it's scary/crazy to launch a web app that is so easily clonable for Google, the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. This leaves room for simple web apps who do a better job (or at least have a simple UI that is understandable).
the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features.
Hmm. Why not? Why can't Google continuing builder richer and richer search results, results which become smarter and smarter in matching what users are looking for? The potential level of customisability for a search result/user to a search query is infinite. At higher levels you move beyond the crude "search" metaphor to what Google is really working towards: full brain-augmentation. Not a tool the mind must learn to use, but a tool built to work with the mind, a tool in fact that is tailored perfectly for each and every mind.
Hmm. Why not? Why can't Google continuing builder richer and richer search results, results which become smarter and smarter in matching what users are looking for? The potential level of customisability for a search result/user to a search query is infinite. At higher levels you move beyond the crude "search" metaphor to what Google is really working towards: full brain-augmentation. Not a tool the mind must learn to use, but a tool built to work with the mind, a tool in fact that is tailored perfectly for each and every mind.
It may be trivial, but by my estimation the domain "online-stopwatch.com" gets somewhere in the region of 50k-100k visitors per day as a first-order approximation. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were making between $300-$500 daily in ad revenue, or somewhere on the order of $100k - $200k per year.
sounds like they have cornered the online stopwatch market...
All joking aside it must be really hard work to keep your ranking at #1 when competitors (and google) can easily replicate your functionality.
All joking aside it must be really hard work to keep your ranking at #1 when competitors (and google) can easily replicate your functionality.
It's also probably a product that didn't take too many lines.
Depends if it was built by a hacker or a company with product managers.
That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.
> That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.
Even with the google thing that does the function at the top, users have the choice. If it was a "I'm Feeling Lucky" style redirect (but always to a Google service with no search results page) whenever the query fit a format that keyed a Google-provided service, then the user wouldn't have the choice, but giving you a thing that provides what you think you want as well as links to other pages that might either do what you want or have the information you want doesn't deny you the choice of using those other pages instead of Google's tool.
Even with the google thing that does the function at the top, users have the choice. If it was a "I'm Feeling Lucky" style redirect (but always to a Google service with no search results page) whenever the query fit a format that keyed a Google-provided service, then the user wouldn't have the choice, but giving you a thing that provides what you think you want as well as links to other pages that might either do what you want or have the information you want doesn't deny you the choice of using those other pages instead of Google's tool.
if it takes you hefty investment, it would also take google hefty investment to replicate your product. Sure you lose the google juice, but you could say the same for any product, and back when microsoft did it, they got sued.
If you provide the best product, even better than what google can provide, it won't matter that google put theirs at the top of their search results. e.g. G+ and facebook - no matter how hard google is promoting G+, it still hasn't gotten the traction of facebook.
If you provide the best product, even better than what google can provide, it won't matter that google put theirs at the top of their search results. e.g. G+ and facebook - no matter how hard google is promoting G+, it still hasn't gotten the traction of facebook.
I believe they have Facebook envy and now wants to keep every visitors they get on the site for as long as possible, just like Facebook. This is a departure away from their original philosophy in which their goal was to send users to the most relevant site for the user query as fast as possible.
I hope they haven't forgotten that the reason Yahoo lose out to Google was precisely because of this. Yahoo switched their vision from a search engine to a portal, and their product search engine start to suck.
This is dangerous. The best ad platform (which generates the most revenue) are those that are most efficient at sending traffic to advertiser's properties. Facebook main source of revenue comes from mobile app install ads which direct users to the app store for download, and page post ads, which sends traffic to advertiser's website.
A change in priority to hold users as long as possible on Google search isn't very tenable in the long term.
I hope they haven't forgotten that the reason Yahoo lose out to Google was precisely because of this. Yahoo switched their vision from a search engine to a portal, and their product search engine start to suck.
This is dangerous. The best ad platform (which generates the most revenue) are those that are most efficient at sending traffic to advertiser's properties. Facebook main source of revenue comes from mobile app install ads which direct users to the app store for download, and page post ads, which sends traffic to advertiser's website.
A change in priority to hold users as long as possible on Google search isn't very tenable in the long term.
Google has been keeping users from calculator web sites with its calculator/unit converter since before Mark Zuckerberg even wrote Facemash[1]. A fairly obscure timer feature that only shows up when you search for a particular phrase is nothing like search portals of old, nor is this a departure from the different search result widgets they've had for a decade now.
This feels like a feature that the OS should have but most don't, and I'll use it like I use google as a calculator or as a dictionary: if it's faster to open a tab and put in the query than it is to launch a program or a particular page and start a timer there. I did the same thing when I was on windows and it was faster to ask google than to run "calc" and then do the calculation, and it was the same tradeoff when I switched to a mac and it turned out spotlight could do many calculations even faster with just a command-space.
[1] http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_wor...
This feels like a feature that the OS should have but most don't, and I'll use it like I use google as a calculator or as a dictionary: if it's faster to open a tab and put in the query than it is to launch a program or a particular page and start a timer there. I did the same thing when I was on windows and it was faster to ask google than to run "calc" and then do the calculation, and it was the same tradeoff when I switched to a mac and it turned out spotlight could do many calculations even faster with just a command-space.
[1] http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_wor...
Agree. What Google did replaced plenty of functionalities that are available on desktop (math, spell-check, dictionary).
But their recent card-based solution to a lot of searches seems to show that they're trying to keep users on Google-owned properties. Try searching for a movie review. You'll notice that everything that pertains to the movie is shown on top and on the right. Clicking on actors lead to yet another google search result with another card on the right. In short, you're being kept within Google.
Does it get you the information you're looking for in as little time as possible? Absolutely. But they're doing this at the expense of the sites they took the data from.
But their recent card-based solution to a lot of searches seems to show that they're trying to keep users on Google-owned properties. Try searching for a movie review. You'll notice that everything that pertains to the movie is shown on top and on the right. Clicking on actors lead to yet another google search result with another card on the right. In short, you're being kept within Google.
Does it get you the information you're looking for in as little time as possible? Absolutely. But they're doing this at the expense of the sites they took the data from.
> But they're doing this at the expense of the sites they took the data from
That would be Freebase, which is what it's for.
I'm not really seeing your point for that example, though. Maybe for something simpler it would be true, but if I'm looking for a movie review, the information in the top right isn't sufficient for anything besides seeing a wikipedia summary, a screenshot, and some of the actors in it. Anything deeper would require clicks into the actual content, which is actually an apt analog to a simple timer not replacing anything of substance.
That would be Freebase, which is what it's for.
I'm not really seeing your point for that example, though. Maybe for something simpler it would be true, but if I'm looking for a movie review, the information in the top right isn't sufficient for anything besides seeing a wikipedia summary, a screenshot, and some of the actors in it. Anything deeper would require clicks into the actual content, which is actually an apt analog to a simple timer not replacing anything of substance.
You're right that they keep you on Google, and that they're taking market share from sites that used to serve such queries. From a consumer's perspective, it's possibly a better experience than it used to be, though. The only risk (which you alluded to) is that they lose focus on making a good quality search engine because they're too busy making little widgets. I don't think there's any evidence that's happening, though.
Alfred app (http://www.alfredapp.com/) on OS X.
define <a word> 1 + 2 open <filename> etc.
It's "magical".
define <a word> 1 + 2 open <filename> etc.
It's "magical".
I don't think it's to hold users on Google as long as possible: it's to give users what they're looking for as soon as possible.
I was looking for a timer utility the other day. I googled "timer 10 minutes", and got back a list of options, with no way to choose one that was actually good (the top result claimed it had an audio indicator but it didn't work, so I ended up missing the end of the ten minutes). Likewise, I used to Google for weather forecasts -- then pick a site, wait for all its chrome to load, and then get my forecast. Now, I search for what I want and get it right away. If I don't like Google's version, I just scroll down to the search results.
At first, their only way to get users what they wanted was to get them off the site; the goal is still to get users what they want as soon as possible -- there's just a better way to do so now.
I was looking for a timer utility the other day. I googled "timer 10 minutes", and got back a list of options, with no way to choose one that was actually good (the top result claimed it had an audio indicator but it didn't work, so I ended up missing the end of the ten minutes). Likewise, I used to Google for weather forecasts -- then pick a site, wait for all its chrome to load, and then get my forecast. Now, I search for what I want and get it right away. If I don't like Google's version, I just scroll down to the search results.
At first, their only way to get users what they wanted was to get them off the site; the goal is still to get users what they want as soon as possible -- there's just a better way to do so now.
The problem with this approach is that when someone creates a better weather site and the Web decides that it's good, it won't become the top result, because Google's weather functionality is already hardcoded to be the top result.
The right solution is for Google to open up the SERP in a limited way, allow sites to put their widgets there and let them compete. This is tricky (tech, business, UX...) but it's doable and it would be better for the future of the Web.
The right solution is for Google to open up the SERP in a limited way, allow sites to put their widgets there and let them compete. This is tricky (tech, business, UX...) but it's doable and it would be better for the future of the Web.
No, their original mission was to organise the world's information, and remains so. Search was just the first step and the one that became a cash cow.
Of course the timer sucks for the owner of the top-ranking timer, but I can't see how it diminishes user experience in any way.
Of course the timer sucks for the owner of the top-ranking timer, but I can't see how it diminishes user experience in any way.
Yahoo! didn't switch their vision from a search engine. Yahoo! was a portal long before it was a search engine. In ye olden times, Yahoo! maintained a curated list of hierarchically organized links. That was their core product.
I would argue that Yahoo! lost to Google because Yahoo!'s business was in approximating a solution to a problem that users had, and Google came along and figured out a way to much more directly address that problem. Curated lists were better than nothing, and for a long time, it was the best thing available. Google simply built a new type of thing that made the old way immediately obsolete.
I would argue that Yahoo! lost to Google because Yahoo!'s business was in approximating a solution to a problem that users had, and Google came along and figured out a way to much more directly address that problem. Curated lists were better than nothing, and for a long time, it was the best thing available. Google simply built a new type of thing that made the old way immediately obsolete.
A precedent has already been set a while ago with Google's calculator [1], Knowledge Graph [2] and whatnot.
Search engines' goal is to deliver information and services to their users as fast as possible. If they can provide those themselves, it's a win both for them and their users.
I wrote about it here: http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=banana
Search engines' goal is to deliver information and services to their users as fast as possible. If they can provide those themselves, it's a win both for them and their users.
I wrote about it here: http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=banana
Agreed. From the consumer-centric perspective, if Google's solution is "good enough" it will halt their search. However, if there is a better solution needed, they will continue to look to the results below the search. Providing value-add on top of what Google's auto-reply gives you is how a site can differentiate itself.
also weather, stocks etc
This is also far from the first (or even broadest) utility of this type from Google.
See also:
https://www.google.com/#q=calculator
https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york
https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km
https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb
https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama
https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf
See also:
https://www.google.com/#q=calculator
https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york
https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km
https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb
https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama
https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf
The one I use most often is Google's dictionary:
https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world
https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world
https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york
https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la
https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint
https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la
https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint
Where did they get an arbitrary 154 calories for a pint of beer? Calorie count is closely tied to style and alcohol content. A few examples:
Bud Light: 109 calories in 120z. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA: 294 calories in 12oz. Weyerbacher Merry Monks: 279 calories in 12oz.
Bud Light: 109 calories in 120z. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA: 294 calories in 12oz. Weyerbacher Merry Monks: 279 calories in 12oz.
There's a link below the results that says "sources include USDA" and points to http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4166?qlookup=14003&ma...
Probably the same source Wolfram Alpha uses.
Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. Most people don't want to program.
In a world where people still don't know what a browser is, I am optimistic for online-stopwatch.
In a world where people still don't know what a browser is, I am optimistic for online-stopwatch.
> Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming.
The Google Search field is the CLI of the web?
The Google Search field is the CLI of the web?
Yes? For those who bother to learn about it.
I used to do a Google search for [mlb standings] and click through to the top search result. Now I just look at the onebox Major League Baseball standings results instead.
I've also noticed the results of a search for [Olympic medal count] steadily improve every two years so that I no longer need to click through to any search results to see the data I want.
I've also noticed the results of a search for [Olympic medal count] steadily improve every two years so that I no longer need to click through to any search results to see the data I want.
In a way, yes it seems quite bad that Google has enough power to just completely destroy small sites like that. But when it's a lot better from a user perspective just to instantly see the result than to navigate to some poorly designed ad-ridden mess to get what they need.
See also: flights, insurance, credit cards etc.
Sometimes I think that your only option as an affiliate in these markets now is to brand yourself so heavily (MoneySuperMarket, for instance) that people search for your brand, understanding what you do, rather than trying to rank first for the generic term (compare insurance, cheap insurance etc) and hope they click your link.
Even if Google's offering for some of these things is still not as pushed as it could be today, what's to say they won't butcher your traffic / revenue tomorrow?
Sometimes I think that your only option as an affiliate in these markets now is to brand yourself so heavily (MoneySuperMarket, for instance) that people search for your brand, understanding what you do, rather than trying to rank first for the generic term (compare insurance, cheap insurance etc) and hope they click your link.
Even if Google's offering for some of these things is still not as pushed as it could be today, what's to say they won't butcher your traffic / revenue tomorrow?
[deleted]
Same for IP addresses and http://www.whatismyip.com/
And Google's version doesn't use Flash so it's actually useful on most devices.
Considering Google was the one sending them all their traffic before...
I wondered the same a while back when I'd often get old and out of date Google Code results showing up before the actual Github ones which I wanted.
Not the same feature. Those Google Code pages have better PageRank than the corresponding Github ones (older pages more links?). I don't think Google Code is given any preferential treatment in the results--if so, the UI would be presented differently.
Also works with
Original Reddit link that started it all: http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/1j3pnv/ysk_us...
timer <time of day>
Original Reddit link that started it all: http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/1j3pnv/ysk_us...
I built something for this exact purpose a few weeks ago. Surprisingly, I would put it's functionality in one of the top 10 things I use now.
http://errk.se/remind_me_after/
http://errk.se/remind_me_after/
Seems to be limited to 1 second short of 1 day. What good is that? I want a timer that counts down to my favorite console launch. (I am not saying which one because I figure if I choose the wrong console I won't get any upvotes)
Doesn't work for me in Safari 6.1 or latest Chrome. (Strangely worked on google.co.uk but doesn't work on .com)
Doesnt work in my Nightly 27.0a1
What am I supposed to be seeing? There is no special behaviour when I do this search.
I don't get anything special - Google Chrome on OSX
you can combine this with the voice option from search, nice way to speak out loud and have this timer set. I've set up a custom shortcut for triggering voice search ( besides the Ctrl+Shift+.) and works like a charm.
just wrote something similar in 60 lines of JavaScript: http://requirebin.com/embed?gist=6668018
Fancy, however, I still prefer things like http://e.ggtimer.com/ as it allows other functions such as a Pomodoro timer.
You can also use this bookmarklet:
javascript:window.open("https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr#q="+((document.title.index...);
javascript:window.open("https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr#q="+((document.title.index...);
Yay, I broke it :-)
https://www.google.com.au/?q=timer+for+23+hours+59+minutes+6...
https://www.google.com.au/?q=timer+for+23+hours+59+minutes+6...
Maximum appears to be one day. Yet this works anyway:
https://www.google.nl/?q=timer+for+23+hr+120+min+59+secs#q=t...
https://www.google.nl/?q=timer+for+23+hr+120+min+59+secs#q=t...
This totally freaked me out.
I clicked the link to be opened in a new tab - and continued what I was doing.
I heard that beeping sound, and was completely baffled where it was coming from (didn't sound like it was coming from the speakers).
You should have seen me picking up papers on my desk listening to them. I listened to every potential port on my phone to see if it was giving off this sound.
I felt like I was going crazy while I was doing it, but I just couldn't figure out the source of the sound. Thinking back, if a camera was in my office, that woulda been hella funny to watch.
I clicked the link to be opened in a new tab - and continued what I was doing.
I heard that beeping sound, and was completely baffled where it was coming from (didn't sound like it was coming from the speakers).
You should have seen me picking up papers on my desk listening to them. I listened to every potential port on my phone to see if it was giving off this sound.
I felt like I was going crazy while I was doing it, but I just couldn't figure out the source of the sound. Thinking back, if a camera was in my office, that woulda been hella funny to watch.
Did the same thing too, couldn't find the source at all since it didn't sound like it came from the computer. Thought my phone had gone nuts because it had no indication at all of any alarm...
One of the reasons I'm really happy about the feature to show what tab is playing sound in chrome. I was somewhat freaked out as well but only until I saw the movement in one of the tabs.
Same. I just marched all over the office looking for the annoying beeping sound.
Just happened to me TWICE :) Finally figured it out.
ahah, I did exactly the same =)
Typical Google. Uninformative, trite, bland, uninspired user experience. That's the best auditory indicator they could find? The following may not be a popular statement here, but it seems Google is still overrun by engineers that are humanoid-challenged. With all due respect to engineers, engineers are not human readable.
Pretty sure painting with a broad brush is one of the quicker ways for your opinion to be ignored.
#justsaying
#justsaying
Noticed that Alfred's default search URL for Google wouldn't work with
the timer: http://www.google.com/search?q=set+timer+for+10+seconds
It has to be https://www.google.com/#q=timer+for+10+seconds so I made a custom search URL and can now use the timer through Alfred.
It has to be https://www.google.com/#q=timer+for+10+seconds so I made a custom search URL and can now use the timer through Alfred.
No, the first url worked for the timer fine for me.
Pomodoro Bookmarklet (powered by Google timer):
1. Create new bookmarklet
2. Name: Pomodoro
3. URL: javascript:window.open("https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr#q="+((document.title.index...)?"":"2")+"5+minute+timer&safe=off",'_self');
4. Save
Click on the bookmarklet to toggle between "Work" and "Break" mode.
1. Create new bookmarklet
2. Name: Pomodoro
3. URL: javascript:window.open("https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr#q="+((document.title.index...)?"":"2")+"5+minute+timer&safe=off",'_self');
4. Save
Click on the bookmarklet to toggle between "Work" and "Break" mode.
Or you can use Tomatoes[1] to track also your working time.
[1] http://tomato.es
[1] http://tomato.es
I really miss per-application volume control (like in Windows).
Here's your poached egg timer...
https://www.google.com/#q=timer+for+3+minutes+30+seconds
https://www.google.com/#q=timer+for+3+minutes+30+seconds
Can't resist mentioning my small timer site from several years ago: http://clockster.net. Takes RESTful urls, like http://clockster.net/3min30s.
Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!