Google accessibility search doesn't violate Google's TOS, yet gives the cleanest possible interface:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=000183394137052953072%3Azc1orsc...

But scrolling seems to be somewhat broken.

Removing the "In Cache" link probably makes the user interface less cluttered. I used it a lot, and had to go look for it yesterday. From the official support thread:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web+Search/thread?tid=...

But I don't have the user data that Google has. If less than 1% of the users account for the "in cache"-usage, the solution to require an extra click to get to it, is more sane, viewed in that light.

Shouldn't be too hard to make a browser plug-in / Greasemonkey script, so to add a link to:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.yc...

directly under search results.

I really dislike services like that. Searches cost real money to Google, using them through that is almost stealing, in my opinion. Just use a different search engine.

EDIT: I'd like if someone would reply if they disagree. Do you dispute that each search costs money to Google, or what?

I feel no guilt. Google's main revenue stream is advertisements, which I will never click on. Yet, I still use Google continuously. Does that mean I'm stealing? Either way I'm getting something for free and not contributing to their revenue.

Hmm, I suppose that's true - I never click them either, if only because my eyes skip them unconsciously - but on the other hand, accepting $20 from my aunt or taking it from her wallet are very different, despite her ending up with the same money.

You're contributing data to them

This is absurd. It's like worrying about charging your laptop in Google's offices because it increases their electricity bill.

I wouldn't charge my laptop in anyone's office (or home) without asking them and receiving permission. I don't see what's absurd about this.

If you were sitting in Google's lobby (with permission) you would feel the need to ask permission before plugging in your laptop's power adapter?

Yes. But the situation is not analogous, so the answer is irrelevant.

Google clearly doesn't think that that Scroogle is a net minus to them, so why would you think so?

How do you know that they think that scroogle is not a net minus to them?

That they've been operating for a long time gives me that impression.

Or they just don't want to deal with the PR problems.

there is no cache link in there...

Scroogles lack of cache link isn't relevant to the comment I replied to.

"I am getting a hunch (just a vague feeling) that we might be approaching a time where a new, simpler search experience would pick up a lot of users - maybe amongst us HN/early adopters?"

If it was a top level comment, you'd have a point.