[melvinram]

"A second might matter tremendously to an engineer... that's kind of a silly way of thinking about it."

I remember a study done by Google that showed that by shaving off something like 1 second from their load times, they were able to increase the number searches people did substantially, which for Google = millions of dollars in extra revenue from ad clicks. Seconds still matter.

[txxxxd]

Totally agree, this author is missing a critical point: shaving a second of a search doesn't just mean that Google feels faster - it also means that everything else suddenly feels slower in comparison.

[mbreese]

I'm less interested in how fast Google can return a result. (That should be as fast as possible...)

What really matters to me is how quickly can I find what I'm looking for and go on my way. This is the only metric that really matters.

Total time = search result + visual scanning/deciding

Right now, for me, the total time has increased because the time it takes for me to scan the page and figure out if I want to click a link has increased. Also, because you're being bombarded with extra links as you type, I'm more apprehensive about clicking a link, because I'm wondering if there was a better choice using a different variation of the query.

I loved the older method of as you type updating the query box, but this is information overload.

[Kadrith]

I just open the links in a new tab, then once I have several open I check to see if they are what I want. If they are not I close them and go back to the search tab to refine what I am looking for.

Slightly different topic, but I like Wonder Wheel for searching as well. I start with something intentionally vague if I don't know the exact phrase I want for describing something. Then I select the best choice from the Wonder Wheel.

[kenjackson]

The ironic thing though is that Google feels slower with instant search. I feel like the experience I have is this now:

I'm tying in the search box and I see a whole bunch of results flying below. But by the time I get to the end of my text, I look down and there are no results, and Google is telling me to hit ENTER. I feel like I'm literally wasting seconds because I had an expectation of results, but instead got nothing instantly.

The UI is probably great for people who are hunt and peck typists. But I think most people will find it to hinder more than help.

[davidk0101]

Something similar happens with realism in cartoons. Up to a certain point of realism people react favorably but then there is a point when people no longer like what they are seeing. So if you just interpolate the test results with shaving off seconds it sounds really good on paper from an engineering standpoint but in practice it is something else. Shaving off seconds after you press enter I think is a good thing but shaving off seconds while you are typing is a completely different thing. The instant thing doesn't make any sense to me and all it does is just add visual clutter. Plus I'm not entirely convinced google added instant for the benefit of the consumer. What were they trying to do, save an extra keystroke? All instant does is make ads pop up sooner and I think that was the real motivation behind implementing it.

[bostonvaulter2]

Thats called the uncanny valley

[hanibash]

If revenue took precedence over user experience for Google in the past, Google would be very different today.

[mattmanser]

When do people sit there and do 50 different searches in a row? This is a strange stance to take.

[enneff]

When searching is fast, you're more inclined to refine your search terms, hence you do more searches. Seems a pretty straightforward concept.

[mattmanser]

No, I honestly don't see it.

After each search don't you actually open a few websites and see if they have the information you need?

There's no inherent value in refinement without inspection. The little snippets of text under each link are only 20-30 words long. They rarely convey anything of value.

Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong, but if people want to find out about the Nottingham food and drink festival do they start with 'Nottingham'. Then 'Nottingham Festival'. Then 'Nottingham Food and Drink Festival'? As that seems like an odd process to me.

Also, if you're not finding what you need by inspecting sites as you go, then Google isn't making any money as you're not clicking on any links.

So either tack you take on defending it, the opening comment still makes no sense.

[randallsquared]

The little snippets of text under each link are only 20-30 words long. They rarely convey anything of value.

My experience could not be more different. Probably half the searches I ever do on Google are complete without opening any of the links, because the answer I'm looking for is in the summary. Say I use Google only fifty times a day (many days it's more than that, but some days less). The vast majority of those searches are for trivial things that I would never have bothered to find out until after Google:

"What's a more businesslike word that kinda means flighty... oh, capricious, right."

"4.1 million rupiah? What's that in USD... ok, a little over 400 bucks."

"What's this error message from mysql|apache|PHP mean?"

"What's this error message from I-don't-know-what mean?"

Now that I think of it, the summary answers my immediate question well over half the time. You appear to make an argument that that's bad for Google.

[ido]

    After each search don't you actually open a few 
    websites and see if they have the information you need?

    There's no inherent value in refinement without 
    inspection. The little snippets of text under each 
    link are only 20-30 words long. They rarely convey 
    anything of value.

They are often very useful - I often use the description to determine if the search requires further refinement.

[KuraFire]

“Seconds still matter.”

Yes — for Google to make money a lot more than for you as end user.