Googles fall from grace

It has now no direct links in search but redirects to real sites with url=.
Spying on my every search is not enough?

It has now no direct links in search but redirects to real sites with url=.
Spying on my every search is not enough?
It has now no direct links in search but redirects to real sites with url=.
What are you on about?

Disabling Javashitscript on Google helps.

That used to work, but doesn't seem to work here anymore, if I disable JS, all the links call to its own script which then redirects. Now I have to either use a different search engine or copy paste the links directly.

Yeah, I've noticed that trying to rightclick and copy shortcut to link PDF files for people. It's a pain in the ass.
You know what else pissed me off? Altavista getting rid of their Audio file search. bunch of fucking whimps.

// ==UserScript==
// @id             Google
// @name           GoogleSearchFix
// @version        1.0
// @namespace     
// @author        
// @description    Hides ads
// @include        http://www.google.*
// @include        https://www.google.*
// @run-at         document-end
// ==/UserScript==
function rem(x) x.parentNode.removeChild(x)
function tag(name) unsafeWindow.document.getElementsByTagName(name)
function id(name)  unsafeWindow.document.getElementById(name)
function log(data) GM_log(data)
function tistr(data)  unsafeWindow.document.title=(data).toString()
function geto(obj) XPCNativeWrapper.unwrap(obj)
function sa(obj,att,val) obj.setAttribute(att,val)
function ga(obj,att) obj.getAttribute(att)
function sall(arr,att,val){ for(i in arr)sa(arr[i],att,val);}


function removeElem(elem) {
  if (elem!==null) elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);}
ads=['leftnav','gbg','rhs','tads','leqr','leoi','tpa1','tpa2','tpa3','mbEnd']
for (i in ads) removeElem(document.getElementById(ads[i]));

st=document.getElementsByTagName('style')
for (i in st) st[i].innerHTML='';
GM_addStyle('.gbmtc,.gbt,.gbzt,.gbtc{list-style:none;display:inline;float: left;} \n #srchdsc,#ab_ctls,#appbar,#resultStats,.vshid,.f,.s,#mngb,#gbw,#gb,#gbz{display:inline;}    ');
//fixes links
a=tag('a');for(i in a)if(a[i].href.search('url=')!=-1)a[i].href=a[i].href.replace(/.*url=|\&rct=j.*/gim,'');

They've integrated the Google+ stuff so far into each Google property that they'll probably refuse to admit Google+ is a dud. Does anyone ever even click one of those +1 buttons?

>>7
What ``+1 buttons'' are you talking about?

I expect them to spy like this, but what bothers me tremendously is when they cause slowdowns — I click a result and see "Waiting for whatever.google.com..."

This also makes the destination site look slower than it is.

If browsers had implemented† <a ping> not only the performance problems would disappear, you could easily turn the tracking off (as long as you used anything else than Chrome). But a lot of internet imbeciles missed the point completely and campaigned against the feature. Just another proof that democracy does not work, most people are retarded and ultimately get fucked in the ass exactly as they deserve.

_{† It's actually implemented but disabled by default in Gecko and Webkit}

>>9

um, how exactly would the ping feature make performance problems disappear?

>>10
Normal redirects require at least one network round trip to the tracking server before the destination site starts to be loaded. <a ping> in the other hand is asynchronous: the new site starts loading immediately while the ping proceeds.

I can't believe I had to write that; please stop using computers forever.

>>11
I didn't know about a ping because it's not a standard feature. The more you know.

>Using <ping when you can rewrite urls on the fly like >>6
ISHYGDDT

>>11

it's possible to do this as fast with javascript today

>>14
No it is not. You can do a terrible kludge with significant effort, and in the end, you either wait a RTT or risk the tracking not to work in the event of packet loss — which incidentally would be a good tradeoff for Google (randomly losing 1% of pings shouldn't affect them at all).

>>15
Oh, why would i want risk the tracking not to work, i want to provide Google with all information about myself and a mandatory DNA sample.

>>6
completely fucks up the front page, and doesn't even block &url= redirection. you suck.

>>17
>completely fucks up the front page
I prefer this style, instead of google one. No wasted space, not "toolbars" nothing except search results and a search box.
>doesn't even block &url= redirection
It doesn't rewrite the url for you?

I used to see this months ago and even created a Proxomitron filter for it. It disappeared several months ago too.

I don't see any redirecting from their own site now.

The function you want to neutralize is window.rwt. Hopefully they won't change the name very often.

Also, fuck you Google.

>>20
I preemptively neutralized them all. NoScript and Adblock.
There are whitelisted pages at youtube and some services where js is mandatory(search is not one of them).

You could also use scroogle.org , but it's quite slow and doesn't have images/videos/books/shopping/scholar/etc

http://ddg.gg

Learn the !bang syntaxes, especially !s

>>23
You can't seriously advise me to use something named "duck duck go!" That is just silly.

>>2
Fascinating.
People usingf Altavista in 2011.
For reals?
Cool story, bro.
1998 called they're looking for their search engine, there bro

people still use google?

>>26
You seriously expect us to switch to some shit like Quack Quack Pong or Ixprim?

>>27
I don't seriously expect a fucking thing out of you. After all you are from /frog/ which rather proves you are a failure of a human being. So yeah you were sayin', bro?

>>24
You can't seriously advise me to use something named "google!" That is just silly.