Google News organizes what’s happening in the world to help you learn more about the stories that matter to you. With Google News, you’ll see: Your briefing – It can be nearly impossible to keep up with every story you care about. With your briefing, easily stay in the know about what’s important and relevant to you. Your briefing updates throughout the day bringing you the top five stories you need to know, including local, national, and world content. Full coverage – Understand the full context on any story with just a tap. Google News gives you everything online about a story and organizes it for you – highlighting different perspectives, a timeline of key events, FAQs, important people, and more. Credible sources – Find quality content from a diverse set of credible publishers and discover sources you haven’t heard of before. Stories, for you – Keep up with what’s happening on the topics you care about, whether that’s travel, politics, sports, tech, or fashion.
The fewer stories like this option doesn't stop articles from showing for the topic. Instead, Google news continues to show articles on that topic.
This new format makes you wade through multiple versions of the same news story. In the older format, you could choose to look at expanded coverage if you wanted to. This is just tedious scrolling—and fewer actual stories. Am I missing a way to collapse the coverage to one report for each news story? —with the option to look at other coverage if I chose to do so? I couldn’t see any way to collapse these repetitious listing. It should be up to the user to customize how the articles are presented. I loved the old Google news. This is dumb. One more thing: when I look at the 69,000+ reviews, I see that the average rating is 4.5 stars. Yet, when I scroll through the recent reviews, at least half, maybe more, give it very few stars. Are the 69K reviews including your past versions of Google News which was much better? Something’s wrong here... And one additional note: today I clicked on a story from the WSJ, but was unable to read it because I don’t have a WSJ subscription. It would make sense to tell users “subscription required to read article” before sending them on a wasted digital trip. Or better yet, don’t include links to articles that the general public can’t access. I have to agree with other reviewers that this is a form of click bait that benefits the publishers of the WSJ, not the dupes on Google News whose time is wasted.
Love this app. Very informative.
Me gusta mucho Google Noticias, pero pienso que para que sea más completa la App deberían agregar mas variedad de Noticias...
An Error Occurred. Please Try Again Later. “3 Free Articles Left This Month | Read Article” … Oh, wait. You also have “0 Articles Remaining”
Don’t scroll down thinking you might find a link to read. About half of them don’t actually work. Looks a lot better than it is. Don’t delete the basic google app whatever you do. You’re gonna need it to look up the stuff that doesn’t open.
Instead you don’t offer the user the ability to filter out sites that are the digital equivalent of tabloids - I don’t need you to kick them off the platform, but you should at least offer the user the option to opt-out of seeing stories from the sources known to be entertainment products NOT news publications.
Miss the old Newstand app. This one takes visibility away from magazines and makes you dig through the app to get to news sources or subjects.
This app is the best one to get all kinds of news global news, health, gaming and so much more. Im so happy to read the news in this easy and smart way so smooth.
Top story is almost the whole screen of an iPad mini. TERRIBLE design. When there's a setting to force thumbnail images ONLY I'll switch back. And letting an AI "learn" what I want to read is definitely not what I want. Let me turn that off too - I don't want an echo chamber. Finally, let us build our own sections again. I will keep installing and uninstalling this app every few months until it's redesigned, meanwhile, I'm using Apple News which I dislike slightly less.