Comment Re:Example screenshots of the abuse... (Score 1) 230
What use is that if you can't differentiate between the last ad and first search result?
What use is that if you can't differentiate between the last ad and first search result?
No, Chrome and Chromebook were first.
http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Without-DRM-In-Place/
>I also know that my phone's microphone is off.
How do you know that?
Zooming into an image to show the last ad and first result is "deliberately editing" ? You know the human eye focuses on a small area right?
That's not a screenshot, that's a link. Results are customized for each person so it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Serious question, how is the Xbox One Kinect any worse than any smartphone, tablet, or laptop that has a webcam and/or a mic that people take around with them everywhere, even to bedrooms and bathrooms?
No I am not.
Instead of attacking me, how about posting a better screenshot that shows your point?
It's an old pic. I don't get paid for posting here so I am too lazy to upload another image when that image perfectly illustrates the lack of border or contrast between the last ad and first search result.
If you think another image shows things better, then WHY don't you link it instead of multiple posts attacking me personally, and lambasting Bing?
So we can't demand better from the 'Do no evil' market leader because Bing fails and sucks and Microsoft is the epitome of Evil? I don't get your logic.
Wrong, please read my other post first. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904125&cid=44103749
See these screenshots.
The current Google page, the first is an ad, second is not. http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
A few years ago http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screenshot1.png
Before that http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_after.jpeg
Bing may be worse, but comparison to Bing is irrelevant, it's like comparing Walmart and a mom&pop store. The mom&pop store needs to do these evil things to survive, Walmart can treat employees and customers better because they make lots of profit. Also, Google is the one that claims not to "do no evil" on their site, which Microsoft is the very definition of evil and consumer hostile tactics (see Xbox One).
However, blaming the victims when a huge multibillion dollar multinational company is at fault is a great analogy.
This is pure Google-hate boiling over.
Google ads are CLEARLY delineated. Via several different methods. Color. A text notice, that won't be missed even using a text only black and white browser.
Search something simple like "Ford Fusion"
All the adds are sequestered at the top and right side.
All the Ads are labeled with "Ads related to ford fusion"
All the ads are color coded.
Why not provide a screenshot for us instead of writing all that and describing it so painstakingly? Oh you can't because it shows your post is nonsense.
As shown in the screenshots in my post, there is no CLEAR border between the last ad and the first real result, as there is between the left ads and the right ads. What's the use of all the delineations when you can't tell where the ads end and results start?
Now go do the same search on BING. Its not so clear, in fact you are left guessing.
Any tint is so subtle you can't really see it.
First, no one uses Bing.
Second, Microsoft(and Bing) are considered evil money grubbers who won't think twice about robbing an old woman to steal a penny, perhaps rightly so, so if you're comparing Google(who has the motto 'Do No Evil') to Bing and saying Bing is the same, you're not saying much there, except that Google is on the same level as Microsoft and is evil.
Third, as Slashdot likes to point out, Bing keeps losing billions of dollars, so they resort to doing such things which is somewhat understandable, while Google makes $14 billion revenue and $3.5 billion in profits, almost all from showing ads and increasing a lot every quarter, so they could ease up a bit on such dirty tactics. Google has a bigger market cap than the entire Microsoft.
>Be sure you turn off you ad blocker before you do these tests, because Bing slips in ads even with the ad blocker on, but Google doesn't.
Guys, we have found the lone Bing user on Slashdot!
Seriously, who really uses Bing here, especially for tech queries? I tried a couple of times and went running back to Google.
Your second link, in the comments has a solution to the problem presented in the article. If someone has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and doesn't display my high color picture correctly, that is my fault how? How about creating a solution to the problem, an alternative CSS for Google that can be used on older / crappier monitors, rather than complaining?
That's it guys, no one can complain about any problem on any internet website if it's fixable by CSS or a browser extension, and if the "complainer" hasn't gone around to every internet user's home and installed it.
This is like Monsanto suing farmers for not removing every microscopic seed that got blown over from the next farm by the wind or by animals or insects.
The 400lb gorilla in search having an effective monopoly changed it from this http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_after.jpeg to this http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screenshot1.png to this http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png to make more money by confusing people, and this is my fault because I haven't created a CSS style to change it(which is extremely trivial even for a beginner web dev)? Wow.
Also, I loved how you totally ignored the fact that it's not just crappy monitors that cause the problem but it has been scientifically proven(see the link i provided in the post) that older people cannot see contrast well.
Now you're going to blame me for not inventing an anti-aging drug to fix the problem. I can see it coming.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
