[Sxedlawb]

This sounds suspiciously similar to snipe hunting.

[stutnerman]

I NEED TO KNOW BEFORE I FALL ASLEEP

[MrGunjMan_]

On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Google celebrated ball pit balls with an HTML5 doodle.

[Wavgbtif]

There's no alt tag because it's not an image.

[Ferrotoral]

Search results are in: it's Google's 12th birthday. Pretty cool interactive logo treatment IMHO.

http://thenewsoftoday.com/google-log...homepage/2158/

Nice avvy, KH.

[Mboxmaja]

I thought it might have been some sort of nod to Pointillism, like a specific anniversary to Georges Seurat's development of the technique.

[EjPWyPm4]

Ah, so IKEA appreciation day

So I wonder what amazing research got KH to think it's for IKEA

[igs00r]

Today I only get some greyish 'Google' sign - WTF Google?

[lodsemelf]

Google Instant Search is live on google.com

Cool

[Konservir]

Not availiable here still, even when I log into my account :-/

[doolarsva]

Instant Search causes seizures

[FoetAgerhot46]

Was this really necessary? Does it provide any benefit? Or is it just a symptom of our incessant instant-gratification society?

[Jerwittdergut]

It cuts down on the time most people need to search.

By google's calculations and data retrieved from their testing, it saves 2-5 seconds of search time per query. It's a total of 11 hours of human time per second when rolled out worldwide.

How so? I'll have to experiment and see if it's faster for me.

I can see the supposed logic in that you could start typing a search term and what you want might show up right there for you to stop typing and select it but it seems to me that this need to look at the instant results as you type to find that opportunity SLOWS people down.

[Inenuedbabnor]

Check my edited post. You ****ing respond too damn fast and no one can tell when you're browsing.

[Anatolii]

Searching for "Apolyton" Now, I can type Apolyton in less than one second so there's no real difference between instant search and traditional search for me.

Now, let's say I were retarded and I systematically one-finger type A-P-O-L-Y-T-O-N, after each letter looking through the results for Apolyton's link...

A... straigh AOL comes up
P... bunch of Apple crap...
O... Apollo the Greek god and the Apollo Theater
L... no change
Y... Apolyton Civilization Site.

See my point. For retards to snatch up Apolyton at the instant it comes up would require them looking through the list. It's faster just to type Apolyton (or even Apoly) and go straight to the search results without looking to falsely save that precious second by getting the right search result at the right moment and in the process, actually going slower.

And if you search for things without knowing exactly what you want (ie- normal searching not searching for websites you are familiar with), the speed improvement vanishes since you need to look through the results anyway.

[Tw1anJOO]

Alby, while I'm sure you're analysis is stunningly indepth, Google implements these changes after tons of testing and data analysis.

It's statistically proven to be substantially faster in the average case.

[elektikaka]

No, because your assumption that people cannot type and scan the screen simultaneously is incorrect.

Even if they just type it in while looking at the keyboard (in the case of a computer novice), then they don't need to click "google" and wait for the results -- they're already on the screen.

[newshep]

If they're looking at the keyboard as they type, why the hell do you make the assumption that they stop and read the screen after each press? They shouldn't look up til they're done typing.

[truttyMab]

Haha... but then they can't take advantage of the Instant search!

Yes they can -- by the time they're done typing, the query is up. No need to click 'search' with the mouse like most of them would.

That's my point. No, this is my point -- that you have no point.