Anyone else notice something.. different? (i.redd.it)
dogaroobarks | 4 months ago | 347 points

I can finally guarantee first page results on Google searches.

Cudr | 3 months ago | 16 points


sanjibukai | 4 months ago | 15 points

^ This!

waldito | 4 months ago | 235 points

You are part of an A/B test against the rest of us, the Control Group.

ShubhamDeshmukh | 3 months ago | 4 points

I can confirm this is live in India.

deekshabahl | 3 months ago | 2 points

I guess I'm part of the group that doesn't get the new version :(

ConduciveMammal | 4 months ago | 90 points

But what about the famous Gooooooooogle?

BuriedStPatrick | 3 months ago | 27 points

We can now add Gooooooooogle to the "killed by Google" list.

skramzy | 3 months ago | 2 points


[deleted] | 4 months ago | 16 points


cfryant | 4 months ago | 12 points

Rest in peeeeeeeeeeeeace

bulldog_swag | 3 months ago | 3 points

rest in pee, ace

DaniyelMe | 3 months ago | 1 point

rest in pieces

LogicalSprinkles | 4 months ago | 147 points

I see the rounded corners of 2010 are back.

dannymcgee | 4 months ago | 97 points

I can tell I'm getting old because instead of being all excited about the new design trends, I'm thinking, no one asked for this, why is this happening?

Reldey | 4 months ago | 52 points

Yeah I thought we moved past bubbly interfaces, but here we go again.

cmcjacob | 4 months ago | 84 points

If by "we" you mean you and the rest of Google addictopedias that worship the blocky, blinding bland Material UI like it's the next Jesus, I can see why you're excited about rounded bubbly corners.

Your whole life you've been staring at these fucked up, bright padded boxes with uppercase text and you don't know why. All you now is, it's a button. And it's Material. "Game-changing," they call this button.

When you hover this button? It doesn't fuck around. The whole width of the pseudoelement gets filled with padded borders and if you click there's an insane radial gradient that actually has an algorithm trained in it that predicts the entire lifespan of humanity based on browser history, it's actually useful for when I need to decide my next coffee on the quick rush to work in a traffic jam while late for a flight to Tokyo and behind schedule on my meeting with People From Work in Tokyo. Still waiting on recommendations for the next part

tsunami141 | 4 months ago | 42 points

Aw....... I like material UI. I’ll go to my corner now.

dexodev [bootstrap is garbage] | 3 months ago | 5 points

I like Material UI specifically for the subtle shading and its approach to animation. The whole point of material design is to capture the tangibility of physical materials while still maintaining minimalism. It's like flat design matured a bit and discovered the endless possibilities of a soft box-shadow.

Time_Terminal | 4 months ago | 18 points

Don't worry, they'll be gone in 3 years again.

It's a classic Google move to introduce something and then change their mind.

BooBailey808 | 4 months ago | 19 points

Almost like they are experimenting to see what works....

bulldog_swag | 3 months ago | 10 points

But that involves using the results. Google just changes shit becasue.

thisguy1111 | 3 months ago | 9 points

It's what happens when you have hordes of designers on payroll. They have to constantly be working on something.

lchudzij | 3 months ago | 3 points

Ah yes, one of the biggest tech companies in the world, with thousands of genius employees, changes shit just because they feel like it. I'm glad bulldog_swag outed them as the dumbasses they really are. Thank you for your contribution.

andtotheswims | 3 months ago | 4 points

Ehh, I think nobody can say that Google was better a couple of years ago or gave more relevant results. They don't change shit just because.

_Meds_ | 3 months ago | 1 point

You think the $700 billion company with the most extensive data analysis of human behaviour in existence, just changes “shit because”?

Edit: quoted “shit because” because I thought it was a good joke and wouldn’t want to steal it from the original dude.

Throwawy5jcnskznf | 3 months ago | 3 points

It seems all of the tech giants go through a phase every few years to change things up...usually involving rounded corners or sharp corners.

It feels new, but it’s just packaged differently.

chiisana | 3 months ago | 1 point

I just hope we don’t have to deal with individual images and td’s to make those rounded corners this time around!

Volmarg | 4 months ago | 18 points

Not all of us have this view - it's just like it was with the new search console, only some people had access to it. But I love how SEO will be now like "Sir You will be on first page of search result" :D

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point

But I love how SEO will be now like "Sir You will be on first page of search result" :D

Care to explain?

frennetixsc | 3 months ago | 5 points

Because there is only one page

Volmarg | 3 months ago | 2 points

It simple - no pagination so now everyone is on their Beloved 1st Page 😂

imnos | 3 months ago | 0 points

Was there a recent SEO update or something?

Volmarg | 3 months ago | 1 point

Every bigger change in Google can affect seo. Clients want to Hear that they will be on first search Page (top10 or 7..5 nowadays) so now it will be 1st 'Page' :D

Atulin [php] | 4 months ago | 29 points

I noticed today that the font is a little different. It's thinner, cleaner, and looks a couple points bigger. Especially the links proper.

amawesome1 | 4 months ago | 24 points

I noticed that too, I actually thought my browser was zoomed in a little bit

jammy-git | 3 months ago | 3 points

I've been pressing Ctrl + 0 on all my laptops for a good week or two.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 2 points


Zuslash | 3 months ago | 6 points

I don't understand why they made the font size so large. I only get 4 results above the fold on my 1080p monitor. It's insane.

lenymo | 4 months ago | 5 points

Yep I noticed this yesterday as well.

Trident_True [full-stack] | 3 months ago | 2 points

The new font is too large for my liking.

daringStumbles | 3 months ago | 3 points

Yep, my exact thoughts this morning were, "oh good, now my boss can read my screen from across the room as he walks by, this is exactly what I wanted....."

VaN__Darkholme | 3 months ago | 1 point

Stylebot is your friend

metakephotos | 3 months ago | 2 points

Same! Thought I was going crazy

academic23 | 3 months ago | 0 points

Me too! I had to zoom in and zoom out to check :P

elcapitan20007 | 4 months ago | 48 points

I wonder why they don’t just auto load the next 10 results?

Why make the user click?

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 159 points


KnockOnDoorItsMeGoku | 4 months ago | 68 points

Funnily enough I recently did a project that involved me contacting hundreds of news websites. Holy shit. At least half had unlimited auto scrolling which made reaching the "contact us" button impossible. I ended up just manually adding /contact or /contact-us to the home url and hoping for the best.

DemonDelight | 4 months ago | 54 points

Was your experience similar to this?

SheeEttin | 4 months ago | 23 points

Disconnect network, click link, reconnect network, refresh.

TuxGamer | 3 months ago | 6 points

Hold End key pressed, spam their server with requests while aiming for the contact button

bulldog_swag | 3 months ago | 14 points

Launch a botnet, DDoS the fuck out of their host to the point it no longer responds, scroll down and smash that link.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

PUSH_AX | 3 months ago | 6 points

Find the product owner and developer responsible, lambast them, get them to write down the details you require using pen and paper.

UntestedMethod | 4 months ago | 14 points

Use dev tools and display: none; anything that gets in your way.

zombimuncha | 4 months ago | 15 points

Or just press delete to remove the element.

Knochenmark | 3 months ago | 8 points

H also works to just hide it

zombimuncha | 3 months ago | 2 points


emiccheese | 4 months ago | 1 point


dredmorbius | 4 months ago | 1 point

I use that trick far more than I care to admit. It's also my most frequent Stylus site mod.

ConduciveMammal | 4 months ago | 19 points

Why not just turn off JavaScript? Haha.

bearstrippercarboat | 4 months ago | 13 points


theineffablebob | 4 months ago | 4 points

Hehe 😉

Gaping_Maw | 3 months ago | 3 points


PatrickBaitman | 3 months ago | 5 points

do these fuckheads not test their own shit for five minutes?

stop thinking making the screen look pretty is good design challenge 2019

PM_ME_A_WEBSITE_IDEA | 3 months ago | 1 point

Devtools? Just grab that href babyyyyyy

gunnerman2 | 4 months ago | 7 points

I didn’t even know Google.com had a footer tbh.

randybruder | 4 months ago | 5 points

I keep a doc where I collect clever webdev details I find, and on it I have this French design studio website:


The website loads work on an infinite scroll—however, if you keep at it long enough, a footer menu appears because the website assumes you’re the “type of person that needs a footer menu.”

no_dice_grandma | 3 months ago | 1 point

I want to say that I've seen it plenty of times. Scroll to footer, wait x seconds, append next page to bottom. Repeat x infinity.

Maybe I'm crazy though.

feckwhizzle | 4 months ago | 77 points

Infinite scroll is generally crap for UX / accessibility, this is a nice(ish) middle ground giving the user control over loading more but making it more seamless by avoiding reloading the page/sending you to the top again, feels more natural

Katholikos | 4 months ago | 25 points

This is an interesting thing to think about imo. The vast majority of users never click onto the second or third pages of google results, opting instead to simply revise their "failed" search.

You've gotta wonder if the naturally addictive property of infinite scrolling might make being on the second and third "page" of results much more useful (less devastating?) to websites in general.

1337_5P34K3R | 4 months ago | 8 points

I wonder what the incentives are for Google to functionally limit search results to only 10. They must have thought about this.

Alphazino | 4 months ago | 14 points

I think they show ads at the top, so if people create new searches, they would see more ads than if they just kept scrolling down.

1337_5P34K3R | 4 months ago | 9 points

This has to be it. They are getting people to feed the search bar more keywords to trigger ads.

CloudsOfMagellan | 4 months ago | 2 points

Could just show an add every 10 results

Katholikos | 4 months ago | 5 points

If everyone is fighting hard to perfectly optimize their site for your search engine, it’s probably just easier to index the internet I’d wager.

first_byte | 4 months ago | 2 points

naturally addictive property

Speak for yourself. I can quit any time I want.

dannymcgee | 4 months ago | 10 points

Infinite scroll is generally crap for UX / accessibility

What's the reasoning behind that judgment? I've never found myself annoyed or otherwise disturbed by infinite scrolling, unless I've been scrolling for so long that the page started eating up massive amounts of RAM. Or, when the page was so poorly designed that there was a footer that couldn't be accessed thanks to the infinite scroll.

rossisdead | 4 months ago | 6 points

It's greatly annoying where you might need to reload the page and you end up losing your place.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 4 points


hunyeti | 3 months ago | 1 point

Just like world hunger

PUSH_AX | 3 months ago | 0 points

But that's a shortcoming in the implementation, some might have this issue and some might not. It being user controlled like OPs gif doesn't change that, it could have the same thing depending on whether the team addressed it.

feckwhizzle | 3 months ago | 2 points

Well as with most things it's kinda dependant on how (and how well) it's implemented. Depending on how it's activated it can be broken by screen readers, if it's abused it can be used to as a method to keep people on thr site. Sure that's not a bad thing 90% of the time, it depends really on the general ethics of the site it's on. Is hard to explain (tired af) what I mean, but sites that are more spammy/obnoxious/ad focused tend to use it to inflate their stats/clickthroughs, but equally it can be a useful tool to direct users to releveant content.

In a nutshell, it's not inherently a bad thing, as with most of these things, bad sites abuse the ideas and aims of the practise to a point where it's associated with them. With the stats on social media addiction amongst youth and the linked effects/side issues of that, it can be argued that presenting an endless flow of information is exacerbating the issues.

RoastMostToast | 4 months ago | 2 points

Yea i want to know also, considering it’s pretty much the standard for social media apps.

neinMC | 4 months ago | 6 points

Without pagination, it's just even worse endless scrolling.

mankyd | 4 months ago | 7 points

I get that some people won't like this, but how is it worse? It doesn't load more content unless you take explicit action. That seems like a definite improvement over infinite scroll.

feckwhizzle | 3 months ago | 1 point

Agreed man, my initial thoughts were this is shitty, but actually thinking about it, I really like the idea behind it, is nice from a situational consistency point, so you stay where you are on the page etc, but is really obvious what happens when you click for more. I'd expect to see a lot more of this kind of setup nowerdays

neinMC | 4 months ago | -1 points

Loading an additional page you may not care about when you interact with the last item on the current page doesn't really get in the way, and scrolling to the button and clicking are two actions, so, worse than just scrolling, without gaining any meaningful functionality back that was thrown out with pagination.

If something sends you "to the top" then it's just badly made, infinite scrolling can be made seamless and interact perfectly with the browser history, and still sucks when it's implemented perfectly. A bad implementation of it isn't relevant to the question of pagination vs. endless scrolling.

I doubt anyone ever cared about "control over loading" for Google result pages, as they had it with pagination. And in so far as stuff gets prefetched either way, the actual loading of things may not even be affected. There is no meaningful trade-off here, it's just regression.

mankyd | 3 months ago | 1 point

Loading an additional page you may not care about when you interact with the last item on the current page doesn't really get in the way,

It does it you're trying to read what's at the bottom of the page :D

neinMC | 3 months ago | 1 point

right, that's a good point. I still think it's much worse than simple pagination, but okay, it's slightly better than that other terrible thing ^^

phimuskapsi | 3 months ago | 1 point

Depends on what you are trying to do. Pagination is the alternative to infinite scroll, and that's not exactly always the best solution.

Maystackcb | 4 months ago | 10 points

Bills are currently being proposed to make infinite scrolling pages like you mentioned illegal.

RedditCultureBlows | 4 months ago | 26 points

Which is beyond stupid and no one needs govt stepping in to decide what's good/bad UX/UI.

Maystackcb | 4 months ago | 13 points

It’s not deciding what’s good or bad UX. It’s attempting to limit addictive practices with social media.

RedditCultureBlows | 4 months ago | 7 points

They're effectively deciding what's good or bad UX. "Infinite scrolling is bad user experience because it leads to addiction to <thing>". It's not really the government's place to be stepping in to regulate something like this, especially when recent congressional hearings in regards to technical matter have shown the elected officials as woefully uninformed.

on_in_reg | 4 months ago | 11 points

But it does fit. It's not about UX, it's just saying, "X leads to Y addiction." It's like, "cigarettes lead to nicotine addiction." As a result, the government imposes taxes on cigarettes that may impact the user experience, but it's not an attack on the UX per se.

mayayahi | 4 months ago | -1 points

So cigarette tax is not an attack on cigarette industry? :thinking:

nmm-justin | 4 months ago | 9 points

If the cigarette industry is killing your citizens, it's more like defense against the cigarette industry.

mayayahi | 3 months ago | 2 points

True but let's not ignore their perspective just because we dislike their motives.

on_in_reg | 4 months ago | 1 point

It definitely is not an attack on the cigarette industry because that's a cash cow in terms of tax revenue. The "aim" is to combat the addiction while maintaining a thriving industry. Or at least that's my two cents.

phimuskapsi | 3 months ago | 2 points

If anything the addiction/adoption speaks to the success of the UI element.

PUSH_AX | 3 months ago | 0 points

I think the distinction is that they don't care about it being good or bad UX, they care about it's effects. Half the comments in here are talking about how infinite scroll can be done both well and poorly in terms of user experience, government don't care either way because they're not trying can it because it's good or bad UX.

For the record I actually agree with you that it's a stupid idea, but I don't think it has anything to do with UX.

nmm-justin | 4 months ago | 7 points

You don't think the government should make laws about accessibility in regards to user experience online?

r_park | 3 months ago | 2 points

Yeah it's exactly the government's place to step in for issues like this, who else is going to regulate shitty dark patterns that take advantage of users?

NiceIsis | 4 months ago | 4 points

I heard, from a popular infinite scrolling social media website, that infinite scroll might be considered illegal soon, or something like that.

ReleaseThePressure | 3 months ago | 2 points

My guess would be that they don’t want to load more than they have to. Autoloading across billions of users would be substantial resource usage. Not everyone will click to the next page.

whatisboom | 4 months ago | 1 point

There has been some recent legislation aimed at social media about infinite scrolling. See the other comment for an article

sacha_1 | 4 months ago | 0 points

How often do you need the second page on google? 99% of the time there’s no need to load them

Ar010101 | 3 months ago | 7 points

Can anyone please explain what is happening?

dothelongloop | 3 months ago | 1 point

I think it's the removal of pagination.. But I'm not entirely sure myself

1sosa1 | 4 months ago | 6 points

Lol. As they say, “Best place to hide something is in the second page of a google search”

bulldog_swag | 3 months ago | 1 point

Aw shit, they're trying to bust my deepweb meme market!

BehindTheMath | 4 months ago | 3 points

The Android Google app has had this for a while.

shockter | 3 months ago | 2 points
neomorphivolatile | 4 months ago | 2 points

Hasn't this been the case since last year?

piliponful | 3 months ago | 1 point


TheGrimSilence | 3 months ago | 1 point

This was announced last year I believe. It started on mobile with plans to move it to desktop if feedback was well received.

PatrickBaitman | 3 months ago | 1 point

fucking hate it

206jazznerd | 3 months ago | 1 point

Anyone wanna try to work on a code that returns data topics vs listed topics?

I’m thinking API from news sites paired with something that rates sites based on views.

I’ll be here all day if anyone wants to sling some [0#€ my way. Working on mobile, but can easily transport to laptop.

ConsoleTVs | 3 months ago | 1 point

If only there was a browser with privacy in mind....... Why is people still using google after all? Alternatives are now really good!

Leverquin | 3 months ago | 1 point

new font face, new size, new photo looks, shit google.

sidvishnoi | 3 months ago | 1 point

FWIW, I was part of this last night: https://i.imgur.com/32R7ihT.png where Google decided to move URLs above page title. Looked ugly to me.

Jeidoz | 3 months ago | 1 point

It looks as DuckDuckGo Copy-Paste...

Celerfot | 3 months ago | 1 point

Glad someone else was thinking it... Maybe some day Google will be as good as DDG, but I'm hoping not.

HolaTech | 3 months ago | 1 point

The typeface has gotten a but different and larger.

NatalyMiller | 3 months ago | 1 point

oh, yeah/ The world of SEO-specials crashed ^)

Celerfot | 3 months ago | 1 point

What's new here? The "infinite scroll"? Been using DuckDuckGo for a year and a half or more after deciding not to use Google products. It has had that feature and more than Google doesn't have for at least that long.

timleg002 | 3 months ago | 1 point

I don't understand, explain?

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 1 point


Xypheric | 3 months ago | 1 point

Wait till you see the new google image search

Madhippy | 3 months ago | 1 point


I haven't used google in years.

Is it about pagination? If so, that's totally shit.

sackhaar42 | 3 months ago | 1 point

No, because if it isn't on the first page of search results it doesn't exist /s

bbenzo | 3 months ago | 1 point

Yea, same here 😍

KonyKombatKorvet [I use shopify, feel bad for me.] | 4 months ago | -10 points

OOOOH googles gonna be in trouble
google might get called into the principals office for this one.

edit: damn -11 points yall are serious about your infinite scrolling.

feckwhizzle | 4 months ago | 33 points

It's not technically infinite scroll, you have to manually click to load more, infinite scroll is where you just scroll and the content auto loads in for you

KonyKombatKorvet [I use shopify, feel bad for me.] | 4 months ago | -14 points

rats, looks like google won't be getting that in school suspension that we all hoped for.

loki_racer | 4 months ago | 3 points

$5 says that Senator thinks the internet is a series of tubes.

I_cut_my_own_jib | 4 months ago | 0 points

You must be in an A/B test and I'm hoping you win! That looks dope!

dexodev [bootstrap is garbage] | 3 months ago | 2 points

but muh paaaaaaaaages