Help forum Feed

I have never posted to this forum until today, although I've been using Google since the beginning and the Archived News since the month it was first offered.  And although I eventually discovered the answer to why I cannot access the archives via the old interface (OR the less efficient ones) VIA a Google search, I'm not pleased with the company today.  The search interface was far from perfect, but it was better than what's there now - NONE!  I accept that Google decided to not add to the database of archived newspapers (don't like it, but accept it), but this doesn't make sense.  Apparently, the archived news feature wasn't known to many, but whose fault was that?  Others in this and the other discussion thread that lead me here mentioned that there were ways to promote usage or support it (advertising or a nominal charge to users to access the archives, for example), so why make it inaccessible ('archive' is no longer a choice on the side bar menu of advanced search, and you get squat if you enter older dates into the advanced search data range fields - also noted by others here).  Earlier in this thread luckyshow said it all, so I would like to piggyback on that with a "yeah - what he/she said!"  One last thought: by profession I am a researcher, so "the hunt" is in my blood, but the archived news database isn't something I accessed for work.  I really enjoyed mining the archives in my spare time, not just looking for personal or family "stuff" (not a die-hard genealogist, either).  Often, it was the article or ad that was adjacent to what I was originally searching for that caught my eye, my attention - it was like taking a trip in a time machine and waaaay better than wasting an hour watching a bunch of idiots dance with stars.  I learned something old every time I visited the archives.  Google, if you're listening, use that for a tagline to promote the Archived News.  Just bring it back, please.

So if we want to learn about a something that happened in the past, we have to already know the date that thing happened.

Kinda defeats the purpose, Toni.

No you can't do some of the things claimed above.
• One can't search by 100 results in the News Archive search, unless one begins a 100 results a page search in Advanced Search and then clicks News at the top and then clicks the Archives selection on the left side. There is no other way to do this.
• One cannot access the archive news files in the Advanced News search. It will only go back three months. I should add if you want to do Advanced News searches "by date" order, you will have to click that selection every time you do a new search unless, again, you begin in Advanced Search to begin with. Then it will stay as "by date" each search without reverting to default settings.
• One can no longer search by individual newspaper title name. Not for archived files. And if you try putting the name as one of the search variables, you find that the title at tops of pages is not seemingly indexed. Few if any pages show up.
• If you go to the newspaper holdings listings, there is no way to access them for searching.
• There is great difficulty in finding other newspaper files. Such as Pro-quest newspapers, News Bank newspapers, etc. I actually at times paid to see a page or article, now very hard to ascertain to make up a group of 3 or 10 articles.
• If you use the date range window that is given below the archive files choice on the left (which must be done before clicking the News Archive link), one discovers that very little seems there that used to be there. Or it is not working very well.
• I am particularly unsure if current newspaper sources that are pay services, like some I can access through my local library, are truly searchable using the regular search engines. For one thing they might appear on the 30th page of results, if they are searchable. Why are you intent on making your search engine a dumbing down device. That it forces 10 results a page as default is already outrageous. Valuable parts of search engines are abandoned without explanation and very rare is it when something actually valuable, and not just frivolous, is added. I would like to see a cost-benefit analysis that shows how much that abandoned News Archive search page could possbly have really cost you people.

You should sell it to Bing. If one believed your rhetoric when you announced the archive project, one should condemn you for not just abandoning it, but burying its usefullness as a research tool.
• And don't direct me to Library of Congress which archive different newspapers entirely, and only up through 1922, or other extremely expensive pay servies like Proquest. I do subscribe to newspaperarchive.com, but those are completely different newspapers as well. By the way yours was a quirky interface but better than the rest. A shame you dropped the ball.

P.S.- Public Relations people should stick to their field. This one evidently knows absolutely nothing about good research techniques or even how research is done, and particularly zero about historical research.

Just put it back as it was.
It's a real loss to researchers.

I do not find an "Archives" link on the left navigation bar of news search results pages. It is gone, and I cannot conceive what you intend to accomplish by saying otherwise. I cannot find any combination of advanced search options or context that returns anything other than the recent results returned by the regular search. Your statement that archives continue to be fully searchable is inexplicable.
Don't be evil.

It's a shame that now, having had to go through all the hassle of what is laughingly called "the interface" that upwards of 80% of articles are now pay per view.
I'm afraid that's it for me and google. I'm off to Bing to see if they act as stupidly as you have.
Put the damn ed thing back the way it was.

I have never posted to this forum until today, although I've been using Google since the beginning and the Archived News since the month it was first offered.  And although I eventually discovered the answer to why I cannot access the archives via the old interface (OR the less efficient ones) VIA a Google search, I'm not pleased with the company today.  The search interface was far from perfect, but it was better than what's there now - NONE!  I accept that Google decided to not add to the database of archived newspapers (don't like it, but accept it), but this doesn't make sense.  Apparently, the archived news feature wasn't known to many, but whose fault was that?  Others in this and the other discussion thread that lead me here mentioned that there were ways to promote usage or support it (advertising or a nominal charge to users to access the archives, for example), so why make it inaccessible ('archive' is no longer a choice on the side bar menu of advanced search, and you get squat if you enter older dates into the advanced search data range fields - also noted by others here).  Earlier in this thread luckyshow said it all, so I would like to piggyback on that with a "yeah - what he/she said!"  One last thought: by profession I am a researcher, so "the hunt" is in my blood, but the archived news database isn't something I accessed for work.  I really enjoyed mining the archives in my spare time, not just looking for personal or family "stuff" (not a die-hard genealogist, either).  Often, it was the article or ad that was adjacent to what I was originally searching for that caught my eye, my attention - it was like taking a trip in a time machine and waaaay better than wasting an hour watching a bunch of idiots dance with stars.  I learned something old every time I visited the archives.  Google, if you're listening, use that for a tagline to promote the Archived News.  Just bring it back, please.

Searching by date is not working at Google Books either, see "date range search is not working in google books..." (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/books/thread?tid=4c0854cd84df5459).
Someone has screwed up big time.

Is anyone at Google Listening?

Put it back or explain, sensibly, why you went ahead and broke something that DID NOT NEED FIXING!

It's an affront to learning. It's a proactive assault upon knowledge and all those who wish to acquire it.



If there is anyone at Google who has the capacity for shame, you must be feeling it right now. I BEG you, please do something about this.

Sorry, but this is a blatant lie, Google. At least when you're outside the US you get NOTHING from the archive search. Simple one word searches from 1910 to 1970 always end with "Your search did not match any documents".
To me at least it seems that you completely removed the newspaper achive and are afraid to tell the truth about it. Either that or noone at your firm is beta-testing your chances. This is ridiculous. Like one commentator before me said:

Put it back to how it was. There is not a single reason why this new search should be any better (even if it was working)

don't do that please.

Google...please...we expect much better from you than this!
To reduce or eliminate a previously-existing service is tantamount to taking food right off our plates!
While I'm sure it must have been a daunting task at first to make available as many newspapers archives as possible to the general public, it is completely wrong to arbitrarily pull the plug on everyone the way you have.
A solution exists: put it back the way it was, or hand it over to another provider.
Please do the right thing.
Thank you.

Toni H, contrary to your comments, the Google News Archives are not fully searchable. The search engine has had its functionality and core features ripped right out of it. Searching is now much more difficult than before and brings back fewer results, that is if you get any results at all.

Why was this change, which is equivalent to a slap in the face of Google News Archives' users, implemented in the first place?

Is anyone able to get the "Sort by Date" function to work?

Any query I enter, I only get 10 pages of results. When you get to page 10 and hit Next, it just reloads page 10.

Toni, depending on the computer I use and the browser and OS within it, I often don't see the "archive" link at all. Even then, when using the "archives" when it is available in the far left column, the "custom range" option often turns up far fewer results in less easily sortable formats than the old search function.

Add me in as someone disgusted by the changes in the search functionality of Google News Archives. The custom range does not turn up as many results, either by me manually inputting dates before I search or after searching without date limits. In fact, using the exact search phrase and typing in a date range before and after getting results, I got four different answers using Internet Explorer and Firefox. Of course, there are less results than the old search engine.

I can live with some newspapers missing huge chunks (such as the Montreal Gazette for the second half of 1949) if Google truly wants to abandon the project. But I'll be saddened if what's left goes to waste.

This change is awful. There was NOTHING wrong with the old search page. As a student working on an MA in history, it is imperative that I have access to the search engine for the news archives. I am eight months into a two-year research project and I might as well be working in the 1990s now that I cannot keyword search these archives. The opportunity for new research using a keyword search of old newspapers is unimaginable. If Google wishes to crown itself as the modern-day guardians of information I have no qualms. But please, for the love of God, make the information accessible. Screw these questions about left-hand search bars and operating system and tablets and blah-blah-blah. Just put the old page back up!

And yes, in other browsers, the archives are "searchable" in the way you described. However, the location search does not work, there is no way to sort the article by pay and free to view, and the handy timeline bar is nowhere to be found. Can you at least explain WHY this change was made? Using such an immense amount of print material under the banner of fair use leaves you with certain obligations to the community of people who use this material.

Sorry, Toni. I'm trying everything you guys say for a week now and still no results. Neither from the advanced search menu nor from klicking the Archives button. This is not a user error, it's on your side

I am very disappointed in Google. The old Archive Search worked just perfectly and importantly (for me) was able to sort by free and paid. Why scrap it?

What happened to Google's 'focus on the user'? 

http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html

“The perfect search engine,” says co-founder Larry Page, “would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.”

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible.

I think this change goes against Google Principle #1.  The new search engine gives me back nothing.

Anne

Harvey, I appreciate the thought and effort, but the link you provided is essentially useless.

You can't filter by newspaper, date, pay/free articles or by other filters.

I just did a search for which the relevant results would be roughly between 1976 and 1986 and got back results from as recently as two weeks ago.

Without the old advanced search function and timeline bar, the link only leads to an unsortable stack containing thousands upon thousands of newspapers.

I clicked "no" in response to the query of whether or not the answer was helpful.

Why was the old advanced search function and timeline removed? Can it be restored?

the google timeline was PERFECT! There is no other situation where I actually read the news for fun! for research, writing, and information discovery this tool was priceless. Why in the world it would be removed is not my concern, but what I can do to get it back is.

Google, I'm here to help, let me know how.

Please bring back the old format! I'm also finding now that when I use the new format it is not searching old articles at all now- even when I enter a date range. It has become completely pointless!

why fix something that wasnt even broken. I loved using the archives. please put it back

I had been using the old timeline while researching places in the US and I was surprised to see that Google has taken the old timeline search away. I tried selecting archives but I'm not getting all of the results that I did with the old timeline. Even when selecting the range for the year that I know the article was in it's not bringing it up. It's frustrating because before I was able to find a lot of information on various topics but now I cannot even find the articles that I had found before even when using the same search term.

Reading through the posts here it shows that a lot of people were using it so why remove it?

I found one thing while messing around with the search. If you type source:"name of newspaper" after the search term it'll bring up only results from that newspaper. You have to select archives for it to work though.

Toni, you're an idiot.  It doesn't work at all like you claim.  Obviously you're spouting the party line, but you guys have screwed the old system up but good.  I'm so disappointed in Google.  Corporate greed and games wins again.

In other words, put the damn thing back the way it was, dingbat.

Glad I'm not the only one who is upset with this change.  When google first made the change, you could at least access the historical newspapers and do some searches.  It was not an improvement, and I'm with the folks who say "if it isn't broke, don't fix it."  But now you can't access these papers through searching at all.  The only way I can seem to get any of these papers is to copy an old link for an article that I saved and then browse the newspapers.  It's really ridiculous.  And that workaround doesn't let me access any historical papers that I hadn't yet searched.  I really don't understand why they did this.  Find a provider who will take over these newspapers and let folks who are interested in searching them have access to them. 

I must say ever since they changed leadership at google, their entire product line had deteriorated - all the focus is on social networking and forget the other services that researchers enjoyed using.

Ok http://news.google.com/newspapers does work a little bit - at least I can search the old newspapers now - but certainly not as good as the old format.  I'm with the folks who liked the time line - doing a search and then clicking on results by decade was a really nice option.

Lol - http://news.google.com/newspapers -  well that was short-lived - within an hour that link stopped working.  Using the exact same search I used an hour ago now results in nothing.

Well, Google Archives, it seems the ball is now clearly in your court considering the avalanche of complaints regarding the recent "tweaking" of your newspaper archive service.

Why do I get the feeling that there's more to this than you're telling us?

I can't believe that researchers like myself are once again going to be banished to library microfilm spools!

You opened up a door for us which was most definitely needed and long-awaited, and now you are virtually slamming it shut right in our faces!

C'mon...it was a bad move and you know it, so please restore Google Archives to what it was and should be.

Thank you!

Disgusting, not a single answer from Google on Why this act of vandalism occurred, or whether they are going to Listen and PUT IT BACK!

I'd just like to say that I too find these changes extremely disappointing and frustrating. The old system with timeline was excellent and I used it frequently for research. The new system is awful and I cannot find things at all any more. Why on earth has it been changed in such a detrimental way? Like the other people above, I ask that you please restore the excellent and innovative news archive system that was so well-liked by so many people.