What the hell happened to my beloved image search? You bastards!

Eh?  What's wrong with it?

That's what happened: http://www.neowin.net/news/google-images-gets-a-new-look

I'm still on the old version.    But I guess it won't be long...

I like the new look. It's refreshing and makes finding images easier imo. It's been like that for too long anyway

http://lifehacker.com/5594912/get-back-the-old-go...ch-with-a-url-hack

Breaks my "Google images direct link" script

It's pretty horrible. Is there any way to disable it?

I know if you add &sout=1 at the end of the url it works, but I don't want to do this every single time...? Does anyone know of a greasemonkey script or something?

Thanks!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolando
I know if you add &sout=1 at the end of the url it works, but I don't want to do this every single time...? Does anyone know of a greasemonkey script or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolando
I know if you add &sout=1 at the end of the url it works, but I don't want to do this every single time...? Does anyone know of a greasemonkey script or something?

---

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/82145

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolando
I read the code and seems like it should work but it doesn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
Try the original version (newer and is where the code was taken from):

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/48293

.

Be sure to remove the current script first

---

Try the original version (newer and is where the code was taken from):

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/48293

.

Be sure to remove the current script first

Using a script for the fading effect I can understand, but this?

It's much improved. Why would you want the old version back?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
It's much improved. Why would you want the old version back?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
Try the original version (newer and is where the code was taken from):

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/48293

.

Be sure to remove the current script first

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
Using a script for the fading effect I can understand, but this?

It's much improved. Why would you want the old version back?

---

it looks like bing's image search now

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
it looks like bing's image search now

---

I like it. It's more useful than before.

Less usefull, I can't see the sizes of the images anymore (directly).
Simply removing the big spaces between images and maybe having more rows of images shown on one page would have been perfect.... but nooo....

They better should fix easy-to-fix stuff like properly retaining the search settings between sessions and adding certain options (like old/new view) in the settings cookie, or fixing the random auto-signing in. But I guess that is too easy for them and requires less code than all this fancy hoovering/fading effects, etc, and thus then they can't say they changed something 'big'.

Sorry, but personaly I hate the way Google is going lately.

Mm, I'm not a fan of this new look either.  I liked being able to see the dimensions easily (as the often was the deciding factor on whether I click on it or not).  So far I'm not seeing this as a chance for the better

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
fixing the random auto-signing in

---

I am not a fan of the new view. I much prefer them to go back to simplicity. Although some may argue that the new layout is more simplistic. But as always with time we will get used to it and it will be come second nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by matty
But as always with time we will get used to it and it will be come second nature.

---

The change to the menu on the right is a case of getting used to. (It didn't remove any features/options/ it is a layout change). But removing stuff like the image sizes and dimensions on first glance isn't a case of getting used to, imho, this is not simply a layout change (if it was, then it would be ok I guess). But it is a case of removing features (which I use all the time in each and every image search I perform - and almost the sole reason why I never use Bing for image searches*).

* yes I know, it will be shown when you hoover over the image, but that is _realy_ contra-productive as it takes way to long if you need to wait each time on the popup appearing to select images like that.

Now been put on the new version.  Doesn't look too bad, but having to hover on images is annoying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Less usefull, I can't see the sizes of the images anymore (directly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiz

There seems to be a "show sizes" option that displays it over the bottom-right corner

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djdannyp

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiz

There seems to be a "show sizes" option that displays it over the bottom-right corner

---

I hadn't noticed that before!

It's very nice, but it doesn't remember the setting which is a little annoying

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rolando

quote:

---

Originally posted by djdannyp

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiz

There seems to be a "show sizes" option that displays it over the bottom-right corner

---

I hadn't noticed that before!

It's very nice, but it doesn't remember the setting which is a little annoying

---

I'm sure someone will release a script for it eventually

---

I might do the same, although it is yet another thing which needs to get loaded, etc, so dunno. There are other 'solutions' too, but the point is that Google should get their act together and fix such stuff before trying to go 'Web2.0'. The strength of Google is that it is (was?) simplistic and fast. But they are slowly going in the other direction (pages full of JS code, useless flashy fade animations, etc)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
Google's is better in that there's not so much white space, however Bing is better with endless scrolling, imo.

---

It's great, it fits more images without any clutter that I don't care about, it still allows a certain amount of features by clicks and best of all, when one scrolls down to the bottom if loads the next page of images (endless scrolling).