gInfinity: Get 100 Results On First Page Of Google Search [Chrome]

Advertisement

Google, by default, displays only 10 search results per page. While 10 may not be as bad, sometimes these top slots get occupied by irrelevant links and the actual, useful stuff can get buried deep within the subsequent pages. gInfinity is a Chrome extension that eliminates the need to navigate to next pages in Google search results, by pulling as much as up to 100 results on the first page. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and the following ten results will be displayed, and if you continue scrolling further, the process will be repeated until a total of 100 results are displayed on the very first page.

The extension itself features no icons or settings, whatsoever. With gInfinity installed, every Google search performed in Chrome would yield results in this manner, i.e., more results get pulled as you scroll down. One caveat, however, is that 100 is the maximum you get (despite the rather-misleading ‘infinity’ in the extension’s name). You will have to rely on clicking the ‘Next’ link once you’ve scrolled down all the way.

searchresults

If you’re thinking this might not be the best way to scroll through search results think back to when you had to go through Google Image result one page at a time. Now that all results load on a single page as you scroll down, users are able to view more of them. The same concept applies to the search pages. Normal users do not go beyond the first five pages of the search results and sometimes the relevant information is on the tenth or twelfth page. Google results maybe really good but in the event you have several good results some will end up on later pages and users will ignore them. The extension is pretty useful in that regard and shouldn’t be disregarded without giving it a try.

gInfinity is a handy extension that makes it easier to scroll through results without clicking next each time. We believe users will find it useful because there’s hardly a case where you have to navigate beyond 10 pages in Google to find anything useful. Still, give gInfinity a shot and try it out yourself.

Update: The extension has been updated to support infinite search results, eliminating the 100-results limit that we previously reported. Now, it keeps loading results to the extent of whatever number is available on Google.

Install gInfitity For Chrome

Advertisement
  • If ever there were a completely POINTLESS extension, ginfinity is it.  The ability to see 100 search results on a page is already built right in to Google.

    One may achieve essentially the same thing, though admittedly without all the ten-at-a-time, fade-in fanciness, by simply going to Google’s “Search Settings,” and then scrolling down to the “Number of Results” section of the page, and then just specifying 100 results per page.  It’s not rocket science.

    Oh, but, no… that’s too simple.  We have to have a fancy extension to do it… the either promotion of installation of which is tacit proof that whomever is either promoting or installing it has either not bothered to learn how to use the features built right into Google, or they’re way too easy to impress with doing things the fancy wow-factoor way… just, apparently, because it can be done.

    The article stated:  “One caveat, however, is that 100 is the maximum you get (despite the rather-misleading ‘infinity’ in the extension’s name). You will have to rely on clicking the ‘Next’ link once you’ve scrolled down all the way.”

    My response:  Yes, because, obviously, ginifinity likely doesn’t do anything more than set the number of results to 100 right in Google’s search settings (either bay actually doing it so that one may see it if one goes into said search settings, or by scripting the page in such a manner that it’s achieving it without actually going and setting it… but, in either case, it’s basically using what’s built right in to Google), and then using a little superficial scripting to display the results only 10 at a time and fading-in the next 10 results when one gets to the bottomof the page…

    …obviously to impress the clearly way-too-easily-impressed writers at Addictive Tips, I’d venture.  Oh, look… a bunny!

    We count on Addictive Tips to do way better than this; to see through the smoke and mirrors of pointless apps, tools, utilities, plugins and extensions created simply to impress… pointless things which have lots of glittery wow factor, but no real substance.  Please stop disappointing us with this kind of garbage.

    ____________________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    • “way-too-easily-impressed writers at Addictive Tips” eh my friend? We can’t all
      be cynical now can we? I mean just in case you were beginning to believe you’re
      an excellent critic =]

      Regards,
      Zayed.

      • It occurred to me, after I posted, that maybe I was being a little too rough.  The ease of doing that online is precisely why, for example, that Google Labs has added a little add-on for GMAIL which delays sending of something, and allows its cancellation for a few seconds, just in case one has second thoughts after clicking on the “Send” button.

        It might help for the reader to understand that behind my roughness — and quite probably the motivator for it — is an underlying frustration with the direction that things are going on the web… the insistence on scripting when what’s built right into HTML will do.  We saw this early in the web’s existence with such things as, for example, javascripting a web page’s periodic auto-refresh, or auto-redirecting to another page, when HTML can handle it just fine.  But — and this is important to my point — those writing javascript wanted to impress either themselves or others with that they could do it through javascript rather than just an HTML tag in the header…

        …and so the trip down the road of creating pages which are top-heavy with script, and which don’t behave uniformly across all browsers was begun.  If it had confined itself to such as what I just described, it wouldn’t have been so bad.  But people are scripting things now — in some cases to try to better replicate in the browser the desktop experience, and in some cases just because they can — in ways which are really beginning to negatively affect the user experience.

        For example, open your GMAIL account, and switch it (if you haven’t already) to the “new interface” that GMAIL is promising to eventually force all users to use.  Do it first in IE9 or Firefox and notice thhat in the new interface the vertical scroller at the rightmost part of the browser window is the same as any other web page’s vertical scroller, as it should be.  Having viewed that, now open your GMAIL account in its “new interface” in Chrome.  Notice that the vertical scroller at the rightmost part of the browser window is, in Chrome, scripted… no longer a common HTML element as it is in other browsers.  Most importantly, notice that the scripted scroller in Chrome is bereft of the little up/down arrows at the very top and bottom of said scroller.  Taking those away is HUGE… especially for notebook users who place the mouse pointer on the down arrow and just tap the left mouse button to incrementall scroll down a page.

        Someone at Google apparently thinks that scripting the scroller elements is cooler than just leaving it to HTML… the latter thing requiring much less script, and thereby making the page less top-heavy with script, and thereby making the page more responsive.  Instead, someone at Google apparently wanted to show-off they s/he could do it, and so did… no matter HOW much it hurts the user experience.  Since there’s absolutely no good reason to do such a thing, I cannot help but assume that s/he did it simply because s/he could… maybe to impress the powers that be at Google or something, who knows.  But if ever there were an example of the old maxim, “just because we CAN do a thing doesn’t mean we should,” it’s this stupid, stupid, stupid scripting of the GMAIL interface in the Chrome browser.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  There’s simply no other word for it.

        I love javascript, and Ajax, and Ruby, etc.  They have a place in the world of web page making.  The Concrete5 Content Management System (CMS), for example, leverages such scripting well to more accurately approximate in the browser how a desktop app can make things both appear and work.  I have no problem with most of that.

        But this whole business of scripting things when there’s already an equally effective — even if it doesn’t have as as impressive a “wow” factor — way of doing it is just making web pages slower and more top-heavy with script…

        …script which does not always behave the same in all browsers.

        We went through the exact same thing with plain ol’ javascript years ago… back when browser standards were still being established (and Microsoft thought it had the stones to deviate from the standards and create a few of their own), and processors weren’t as fast, and computers didn’t have as much RAM, as they do today.  Back in those days we really had to be careful how and what we scripted.  That only about 30% of the US’s Internet users had broadband (the other 70% having dial-up) was a huge factor, too.

        Today, more standards-compliant browsers, nearly everyone having some kind of broadband (even if only 768Kbps down), and machines with both faster processors and more RAM in them, have made it so that script-heavy pages now pretty much work, across the board, sometimes even in spite of themselves…

        …except that now there’s a whole NEW consideration:  Portable devices (tablets and smartphones) and THEIR slower processors, limited RAM, limited browssers, and limited data connections.  In a sense, we’re going through it all over again with those devices.

        Part of the problem, too, and one of my long-time complaints, is how web page makers try to turn web pages into, in effect, television… with top-heavy Flash scripting, videos that auto-start, etc.  Such pages “push” content at the user, like television…

        …which would be okay if it were television.  But the web is, by design, a “pull” technology, not a “push” one.  In “push” technologies, like television, the only choice the user has in the content is channel selection (or turning the TV off entirely).  Once the channel is selected, the content is “pushed” at the user, and that’s that.  But in a true “pull” technology, like the web, the user has (or is, at least, SUPPOSED to have) complete control, via hyperlinking, what s/he sees/hears.  

        Web designers who are all full of themselves, and who do things because they can, and not because they should, load-up web pages with all kinds of Flash and other interactive content trying to control the user experience beyond what the original creators of the worldwide web part of the Internet had in mind with the hyperlinking HTML methodology.  Such full-of-themselves designers “push” content at people, instead of allowing them to select what they want to read, see and hear… to “pull” content to themselves rather than having it “pushed” at them.  And, of course, such methods create, once again, script-heavy, bandwidth-gobbling, slow, often browser-choking/freezing web pages…

        …pages which are even WORSE in portable/mobile device browsers!

        Scripting when what’s already built-in to the page will do has always been a problem, that is now getting worse.  Fancy over function has limits, and those who write script for everything from script built-in to pages, to plugins, to extensions, to BHOs, etc., should know where the line is, and when they’ve crossed it.

        Perhaps understanding that underlying sensibility of mine will help one to understand why I so railed against the gInfinity extension.  But do not assume that gInfinity was singled out by me.  I decry all such pointless applications of scripting.  I’m an equal opportunity critic.

        As for whether or not you or anyone else thinks I’m “excellent” at it, I could simply not care less.

        Cynicism, though, plays no roll in it.  Perhaps now that you know that there are actually REASONS — and well-thought-out and considered one, to boot — behind my occasional roughness in places like this, you should be able to see that cynicism isn’t what I’m about.

        ________________________________________
        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

  • Anonymous

    Hi Gregg. Thank you for your feedback on both addictivetips and the gInfinity Chrome extension. I’m disappointed to hear, that you think the extension is pointless. In short I would say that if you prefer the 100 results per page, then you probably shouldn’t install the gInfinity extension.

    So why did I make the extension, when it is already possible to show 100 results at the time? I see a number of different reasons why this is extension is still useful:

    1. Google can show 100 results at the time. The gInfinity extension scrolls until there are not more search results and do NOT stops at 100 results. The above article is simply wrong.
    2. Showing 100 search results in Google, does not work on Instant search which I prefer.
    3. Why load 100 search results if you find your match on search result number 42?

    Regarding the different issues you mention, I can tell you that the gInfinity extension is in fact infinite. The above article is wrong, when they claim that a max of 100 results are shown. And the extension does not use the search settings to do the scrolling. Also the idea with the extension have never been anything about eye candy. You refer to “fade-in fanciness” which is nowhere present in the extension. No animations are used to show the following 10 results.

    My conclusion is, that I really can’t see the big problem with the extension and you are in fact wrong in most of your points, which clearly shows that you haven’t spend time using the extension or looked at the code. I could understand you if I charged something for this extension, but it is 100 % free.

    • While Gregg mainly criticizes things just for the sake of criticism, I may point out that we test everything before writing about it. When we said that it stopped at 100 results, that is precisely how it happened, and unless something changed after we featured the extension, we stand by what we wrote. I’m pretty sure it cannot be the issue of an incompatible browser, either, since this is supposed to be a Chrome extension, right?

      No offence meant, but I would like to reaffirm our readers that we report things only after we test them, to the best of our ability. Before declaring our review to be incorrect, you may want to take a look further into why we’d have found such behaviour during out test run.

      -Aatif

      • Anonymous

        Sorry about declaring your review to be incorrect. You are absolutely right Aatif, gInfinity only supported the first 100 results back when you guys installed and tested it. I released a new version (1.1) which fixes this short time after the first release.

        Gregg wrote his comment long after the updated 1.1 version though, which makes his point about the 100 result limit worthless.

        I was not trying to be negative against your original article, which I’m in fact very proud of.

        • That’s good to know. We’ll update our original review based on the new version. And I doubt if the first comment was made after actually testing the extension 🙂

          • As explained above, it shouldn’t HAVE to be… else what’s the point of web sites like this which we trust to do that testing FOR us, and then ACCURATELY (and that’s really the operative word, here, as other posts in this thread clearly show) report such results to us.

            Again, these are comments to ARTICLES about things, and the things as portrayed in said articles.  If we were all willing to do our own testing, then what would be the point of web sites like this?

            This web site screwed-up on this one.  It reviewed the wrong version of the extension, put opportunities to comment beneath said review, and then seems not to like comments which it invited, but which don’t sing its praises.  Again, I dare say the result of the mentality of those who don’t enjoy American-style freedoms of expression in their cultures.  For those of us who do, the reaction is classic and typical and can be spotted a mile away.

            The MATURE response to this mess — and that’s what it has now become, here — is for this web site to get a spine and step-up and take responsibility for misleading the reader in the article-in-chief by reviewing an out-of-date version of the extension.  It should acknowledge its understanding of that its readers are relying on the information it provides here, and that when it gives them incorrect information, said readers are, understandably, going to comment about it in ways that are also, ultimately, incorrect; and that that’s on this web site, not on said commenters.

            That’s what grown-ups do… people who are mature and willing to take responsibilities for their errors, and the consequences thereof.

            Instead, you respond as a child, immaturely accusing commenters whose comments this web site invites, and which contribute to the interest which makes readers come back again and again, of criticizing for criticism’s sake.

            I repeat:  Shame on you.  Get a spine.  Be a man.  Take responsibility.

            _______________________________
            Gregg L. DesElms
            Napa, California USA
            gregg at greggdeselms dot com

        • Again, Mr. Ardal, Gregg wrote his comment based on the article-in-chief on this page.  It is with THAT, and not Gregg, with which you have an issue.  Please direct your criticism at the correct party.

          Thank you, though, in any case, from participating in this thread like an American who GETS the notion of debate over issues, and who doesn’t take pot shots at the debater over the subject of the debate.

          If gInfinity will show Google search results endlessly, and not just 100 at a time, then that makes it an entirely different tool… one which might actually have some utility after all; and one which would NOT, then, necessarily, be scripting for scripting’s sake, as I earlier suggested.

          But that mistake is not on me.  It is on this web site for reviewing an old version of the software; and then not really taking proper and full responsibility for it.

          If THAT is not worthy of criticism, then it’s hard to know what is.

          ________________________________
          Gregg L. DesElms
          Napa, California USA
          gregg at greggdeselms dot com

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think AddictiveTips reviewed the wrong version. They simply reviewed the version available at the time. The version fixing the limitations of search results, where released after this review.

            You could argue, that I shouldn’t have released the extension until it was truly infinite. But hey Apples iOS didn’t have multi-tasking in the first versions. That’s the tough realities in software development.

            Hoping that you will find the time to test the new version, which will in fact bring infinite scroll into your browser.

            • And the review has been updated to reflect this! 

      • Aatif Khan wrote:  “Gregg mainly criticizes things just for the sake of criticism…”

        Mr. Khan, I’m guessing, is either from or living in a country where freedom of speech and expression is not valued above life, itself, as here in the US.  In the US, we criticize because it’s our right… even, at times, our responsibility; and those of us who expect to be taken seriously do it responsibly, with care and thoughtfulness, without personal attack, with an actual point to which we stick, and making said point well…
        …perhaps TOO well for the likes of Mr. Khan’s tastes, it would appear.Sometimes such points sting; and when that happens, those feeling stung who are either from or live in places where true freedoms don’t exist will immaturely reduce the motivations of the comments whose words they don’t like to, simply, that they complaint for complaint’s sake.  Such is what Aatif Khan is doing, here.Web sites like this which write articles of its type, and which place opportunities for comment beneath them, should expect that not everything posted will be easy to read.  They should, further, be grateful for the input, as an indication of interest and willingness of the reader to participate, as long as said input and participation is constructiive, not containing personal attack or swearing, and is made with good intention and will.I defy Mr. Khan to find a single posting by me not only anywhere on this site, but anywhere in the universe, which was critical for criticism’s sake.  If asked — and often, even if not — I usually well-document my motivations and the background of and reasoning for my words, as I have done here.  It’s difficult to imagine what more could possibly be expected of me or any other commenter.  If this web site can’t take the critiique, then perhaps it should remove the comments from beneath its articles……and then watch its readership and hits nosedive.Shame on Mr. Khan, in any case, for immaturely relegating reasonable — even if uncomfortable — discourse to such petty motivations on my part.  Shame, indeed.

        ___________________________________
        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    • First of all, see my response to Zayed Rehman, above.

      Secondly, if the article misstated what are the features and behavior of the extension, and if my words were based on same, then your complaint is with the author of the article, not with me.  If you were seeing that correctly, you’d be writing that the article is incorrect; and so it’s no wonder that readers like me would be misled.

      As for not spending time looking at and using the extension or looking at its code, isn’t that the point of having web sites like this, and its articles which do that for us?  If I wanted to personally use and test everything about which I read in places like this, I’d, first of all, have no time for anything else, and, second of all, would have a computer with so much junk on it (even if I uninstalled everything after testing it) that I’d need a separate machine dedicated to testing.  And then there’s the “and who’s going to pay me for that?” factor… my MINIMUM rate, just to show-up, is $80/hour… and goes a lot higher if I actually DO anything.  Where would you like me to send that bill?

      These are comments to articles and that which they are about.    If you want me to review the actual extension, then just ask.  Otherwise, hold accountable for what has happened here the entity which misled me.  I am only responsible for what I write, based on what I’m told.  If I was told wrong, then criticize the teller.  It’s quite enough, thankyouverymuch, accepting full responsibility for that for which I really and truly am responsible.  I cannot be responsible for articles-in-chief on web sites like this which are fundamentally incorrect, and so cause me to criticize what possibly shouldn’t be criticized.  

      That said, I repeat:  For a better understanding of why I so rail against certain things, see my response to Zayed Rehman, above.

      _________________________________________
      Gregg L. DesElms
      Napa, California USA
      gregg at greggdeselms dot com

  • I just posted a link to this page on my Facebook wall; and here’s the accompanying comment I made…

    “Well, I really caused a stir in the comments beneath THIS article, didn’t I.  I like it, though, because it covers a lot of interesting ground about the Internet and its trends, the responsibility of those who both influence said trends and also write about it, the differences in attitude about free speech and expression between those who grew-up in a culture where same is both guaranteed and encouraged and those whose cultures haven’t been so fortunate… and a whole raft of other boring stuff.  Along the way, if nothing else, the reader learns about a browser extension that, as it turns out, is cooler than I first understood (ultimately because the artcle on which I was commenting was about an out-of-date version of said extension).”

    ____________________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    • Wow man…just wow. You talk about personal attacks, which may I add, were a direct result of what you termed as “way-too-easily-impressed writers at Addictive Tips”.
      Yet you just attacked our country, or maybe region as a whole, but frankly I’m not surprised.

      So when you say we tested an out dated extension and you ask the Developer to throw his arguments against us and not you, he should. We reviewed it, and we’re responsible. But this might have had some weight in it had you realized that the ‘time’ this extension was reviewed at, was when version 1.1 was not out.

      It’s like complaining about an older issue of some magazine just cause you failed to read the issue date. Softwares update too quickly too often. You are trying too hard to look at it from an average readers perspective…the average reader is smarter than this.

      No one tried to malign your freedom of speech and expression, you just started of at a very wrong note buddy, and you dint really care for much in between as well, but we the people “who don’t enjoy American-style freedoms of expression in their cultures” at least respect other cultures, but you are clearly going the distance. Yet you complain we try to put a stop to your freedom? Really? Criticism and ridiculing are not the same, please make a note.

      I can’t engage in arguments with people indulging in racial or cultural attacks. Over-reaction on my part? Maybe. My team will take it from here if they want.

      Regards,
      Zayed.

      • Pointing out that you are either living in or from a country where spirited discourse is not either ridiculed or mistaken for personal attack is not, in and of itself, either personal attack, or attack on one’s country, or one’s culture.

        It is, like it or not, relevant, here; and that you characterize the making of note of it as the attack, itself, is part of the problem; helps to illustrate the very point I’m making; shows that you can’t even see how it works without it being interpreted as personal.  Non-US cultures — not just yours — do that a lot.  They’re taught, from their youth, not to offend unless absolutely necessary; and what they define as offense is extremely related to culture, and is often something which an American would either not even notice, or would let roll right off his/her back.  That’s my point; and that you can’t see it, because of your cultural upbringing, is part of that point.  You cannot help the color of glasses through which you see the world; and the glasses through which you’re seeing all this is painfully obvious.

        I’m not finding fault with you.  I’m simply trying to help you see what you cannot seem to see, which, I promise you, is cultural… and so relevant, here.  I’ve noticed it in other of my communications with this site.  I’m very aware of where it’s creator and operators are geographically located.  I think it’s VERY cool that this site has becomee so recognized and respected globally…

        …but with that, you need to recognize and embrace, comes the bluntness, freedom of expression, directness, pull-no-punches style of Americans… Westerners.  And I can see, not just from this, but from this sort of thing during my entire 55-year lifetime, how these sorts of exchanges have, over the decades, helped to earn us the monicker, “Ugly American.”  I’m under no illusions about how we’re viewed in your part of the world and elsewhere.  I know that while the American flag can bring tears to the eyes of loyal Americans who love this country more than breathing…

        …the American flag is, neverthheless, reviled in many parts of the world… including much of yours… maybe even, who knows, by you, yourself.  Again, who knows.

        So I get why, in part, I so irk you.  There’s nothing which I can — or am willing — to do about that.  You and this web site, perhaps, need to better understand Westerners… or at least that’s my prescription if you don’t want more comment threads like this one.

        You don’t know me… nor I you.  In that sense, we should BOTH probably be more aware of and sensitive to our differences.  I know, for a fact, that if you and I could sit down and tell one another about our lives, we’d like one another just fine.  Part of the problem, here, is that the written word deprives us of the audio/visual cues which we humans use to figure out if the person with whom we’re communicating is kidding, serious, angry, happy, sad, etc.  Many huge misunderstandings occur via the written word.  Who knows how much of what’s going on here is because of that.

        All I know is that there have been no personal — or even cultural — attacks, here, by me.  You, on the other hand, accused me of criticizing for criticism’s sake; and only ignorant people with nothing better to do, nor any substantive argument to make about anything, ever do such an awful thing as that.  I’ve been on this planet for 55 years; and have quite likely been making substantive arguments both in person and in writing since, I’d venture, before you were born… or, if not, then since you were a child. I’m good at it, and have a long and provable history of fairness in it. I admit when I’m wrong, and demand of others the same.  And there is no person in the entire universe — not even my ex-wife — who has ever witnessed me in any situation criticizing for criticism’s sake.  And so that offended me.  And I told you so, as you deserved.

        I, on the other hand, wrote NOTHING here which should have offended you; nor which would have offended most Americans…

        …and that you can’t see that; that you personalized what I DID write, is, indeed, partly cultural; and so it’s relevant… and that’s why I mentioned it.  I don’t know what to do to help you see that; and I’m quite certain you won’t.  Pity.

        In the meantime, please stop calling me “buddy,” at least until and unless I actually am…

        …which, incidentally, I’m quite certain I’d be honored to be if I could just know you better; and I’ll bet you’d feel the same. Pity that, too.

        ___________________________________
        Gregg L. DesElms
        Napa, California USA
        gregg at greggdeselms dot com

      • Harry Page

        Why do you guys bother even replying to this gregg character/creature/whatever? He…or maybe I should say it…is obviously never interested in making sense and always interested in making argument for the sake of argument, complaints for the sake of complaints and so on and so forth