back to article Google API spring cleaning ends after four and a half years

Google has followed through on its 2011 promise to kill of some search APIs. Back in 2011, the text ads giant announced it was spring cleaning by turning off the Google Patent Search API, Google News Search API, Google Blog Search API, Google Video Search API and Google Image Search API. Google reckons it gave you all fair …

  1. phil dude
    Boffin

    where is...

    the api that doesn't return 1000's of pages of irrelevant advertising?

    Anything with a common word in an advertising junket, returns reams of self-referencing links.

    I propose that Google may be better than the rest, but is a long way from being "good enough".

    P.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: where is...

      Google went backwards. Now I have to hit 2-4 non-Google engines to get what Google used to.

  2. Oengus
    Unhappy

    Invalid Search results

    I find if you specify a search phrase with 3-4 words Google returns a heap of irrevelant pages that you have to sort through. Searching for Product data for example you get a heap of Marketing Search sites that say, when you get to the page, "Product not found".

    1. phil dude
      Unhappy

      Re: Invalid Search results

      and terrible with technical searches.

      I suspect the algorithm that optimises for "adverts", crosslinks everything possible.

      Perhaps there needs to be a button that limits the search to "non-advert content".

      I can't see it happening though...

      P.

  3. John Robson Silver badge

    18 months

    is a decent grace period for all the non-professional users of the API...

    It make life much easier, and really costs very little (assuming that the API is monitored for abuse)...

    So you end up with much happier tech savvy users, who then encourage other people to use your advert generator^W^W search engine

  4. SVV

    Manager for Google cloud platform inadvertently flags up weakness of cloud

    I'm not sure how much it would have cost to keep these APIs active, but documented as 'deprecated'. My guess is not very much. It can be bad enough within a single company when interfaces change, and all clients using them have to be changed. Multiply that by potentially millions of systems that may need to be changed when a service in the cloud changes.

    I have no problem with Google introducing new and better APIs in order to provide increased functionality. However the fact remains that a lot of stuff could potentially be broken as not everyone will be constantly checking the availability of services (even though they should be). This had become much more of a problem with the amount of mobile apps out there which I'm guessing mostly call third party APIs directly and would therefore need updating on every single device running them (and what a waste of bandwidth thatr is). It shows that for any non-toylike apps that make use of third party APIs, the only solution is to write these apps so they talk to an API that you host (in house, on cloud, wherever...) and have that call the third parties, so changes like this can be swiftly and easily managed.

    Otherwise we will have moved rather unthinkingly back to the hellish time of 'clientserver' architecture of the mid 90s when most time was spent rolling out new versions of client software to every client and most support costs caused by lack of good version control and the helll of multiple client versions being in use, either deliberately or accidentally.

  5. Cincinnataroo

    Time for users to take charge?

    Whether intentional or not, this harms some of those who want to take charge of their web.

    It would be useful if we had reasonably priced (not free) services like this AND enough users thought they were better than "free" services, to make them viable.

    (If you disagree with the fundamentals of a business, advertising, surveillance of all humans... they aren't your friend.)

  6. JP 6
    Megaphone

    They could have fixed it...

    Searching with Google, is annoying when you have a name that is more commonly used as a part of another name. If you look up "John Hopkin " you get results for "Johns Hopkins." Unlike other search engines you cannot add "-s" to omit the results with an "s" at the end.

    I am going to miss the image search. It made it easier to find where mime photos actually came from.

    1. Robert Baker

      Re: They could have fixed it...

      I had a similar problem the other day -- I wanted to search specifically for "Skin'ead O'Connor" (the nickname she commonly had in her early days, due to her ridiculously short hair), but Google assumed that the search I wanted was "Sinèad O'Connor". If that was what I'd wanted, I would have typed it (probably without the grave).

      I hate it when dumb people or bots assume that they know better than me what I want; they don't.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022