<snipped> > Therefore my little world of searching isn't turned upside down > because some college graduate at Google suggested this feature as a > way to appeal to a "younger and more captive" audience. </snipped>
I think this is EXACTLY what happened, and the problem. Some over entitled shot hot graduate from some prestigious school gets their start with Google. Immediately wants to change things because everyone has told them their whole life how great they are, and their ideas are the best. Google execs think, never mind our years of actual experience and wild success, we should listen to this! Fail. On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:15 PM, MarvinC wrote: > All of this is "ok", I guess. Whether you, we, us, or anyone likes > it, it still represents "change". Good, bad, progressive or re- > gressive is left to individual interpretation. I for one don't have > a problem with it because again, I have the ability to not use the > option. Therefore my little world of searching isn't turned upside > down because some college graduate at Google suggested this feature > as a way to appeal to a "younger and more captive" audience. > Thankfully the decision to implement didn't come down to anyone from > this list because most techies wanna get one fix in place and keep > it forever.while old tech geezers will always complain about "ANY" > form of change. > Bring back DOS!!! > Get off my lawn!!! > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM, MarvinC <marv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, normal people, outside of the > > technical industry, make purchases based on the fancy images. > > Sure. And we all know how well that works out for them. > > > The search process is just that a simple query which > > requires no effort. > > Exactly. So don't make it more complicated just for the sake of > making it more complicated. > > Simplicity has beauty in itself. > > "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but > when there is nothing left to remove." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > This is something a lot of computer industry types don't seem to > understand. They think the longer the feature list, the more > bells-and-whistles, the more *things* a program has, the better it > must be. In practice, it's often the opposite that's true. The more > stuff they add, the slower it gets, the more bugs there are, the more > security issues, the higher the support burden, the harder it is to > learn. > > > So again why not add some life to it. > > What you are calling "life" I would call "gaudiness". Now, that's a > purely personal, aesthetic thing. But I've got just as much as right > to call it "obnoxious" as you do to call the classic page "stale". > > On a more practical note, it takes longer to load a giant background > image, and consumes more system resources. Individually, it's a drop > in the bucket, but how many times per day does the Google home page > get loaded across the world? > > > Not only is change good, it's also necessary. > > Again: Change for the sake of change alone is not progress. > > <reductio ad absurdum> Let's tear down every building on the planet > and build new ones out of paper mache. Change is good and necessary, > right? </reductio ad absurdum> > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > Eric Brouwer IT Manager www.forestpost.com er...@forestpost.com 248.855.4333 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
